ESARHADDON’S SUCCESSION TREATY AT TELL...
38
87 ESARHADDON’S SUCCESSION TREATY AT TELL TAYINAT: TEXT AND COMMENTARY Jacob Lauinger (e Johns Hopkins University)* e Assyrian institution of the loyalty oath (adê) was an important mechanism by which the kings of the Neo- Assyrian Empire expanded their influence and maintained internal stability (for detailed introductions to the adê as instrument of empire with many textual references, see Parpola and Watanabe 1988: xv–xxv and Radner 2006a). In addition to stabilizing borders with other major powers allowing resources and attention to be focused elsewhere (e.g., Esarhaddon’s adê with Urtaku, king of Elam), an oath of loyalty by a lesser king to the Assyrian king afforded the former the military protection of the mighty empire at the same time as it allowed the latter to expand its sphere of influence at relatively little cost. Within Assyria, royal officials such as governors, priests, and scribes—and theoretically all “servants of the king”—swore oaths of loyalty that were invoked as justification for the reports and denunciations these officials sent to the king. In addition to the references to the institution of the adê in royal inscriptions, letters, oracle queries, and other genres, the text of actual loyalty oaths are preserved on a handful of tablets (collected in SAA 2). Most of these tablets seem to be archival copies that were stored in Nineveh, but one group of at least eight tablets from Nimrud is different. ese tablets record oaths taken in 672 b.c.e. promising support for the succession of Esarhaddon’s son Assurbanipal to the throne on Esarhaddon’s death. 1 Because the tablets are sealed with three divine seals of the god Assur and were found in the throne room of the Ezida, the temple of Nabû, they seem to be the actual “oath tablets” known from contemporary references (tuppi adê) that were elevated by the act of sealing to the status of “tablets of destinies” (George 1986). In all eight examples of “Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty” from Nimrud, the person taking the oath is a subject king (bēl āli) from Assyria’s eastern periphery and so is conventionally referred to as “Median.” Scholarly opinion * It is a pleasure to acknowledge the many people involved in the excavation, documentation, and conservation of the tablet whose text is edited here. ese include Amanda Lahman, the square supervisor, her assistant, and their workers; James Osborne, the area supervisor; Jennifer Jackson, the photographer; Julie Unruh and Caird “Cricket” Harbeck, conservators for the 2009–10 and 2011 seasons respectively; Stephen Batiuk, the field director; and Timothy P. Harrison, project director. I am grateful to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada for their financial support. e initial work on the text was done while I held the Gaylord and Dorothy Donnelley Research Fellowship at Corpus Christi, University of Cambridge, and it is a pleasure to acknowledge also the generous support of the Gaylord and Dorothy Donnelley Foundation. In 2011 as in years before, I am thankful for the kind hospitality of the staff of the Hatay Arkeoloji Müzesi. Karen Radner patiently answered a number of my questions on reading the text and supplied additional references, for which I extend my warmest thanks. Her individual contributions are acknowledged below, although of course I alone am responsible for any and all errors. e abbreviations used in this paper are those used in AHw and/or CAD U/W with the following additions: PNAE = K. Radner, ed. e Prosopo- graphy of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, Vol. 1, Part 1: A (Helsinki: e Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 1988); RINAP = Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period; SAAo = State Archives of Assyria Online (<http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/saa/corpus>); T = siglum of the Tayinat ms of Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty. 1. For the original composite edition with copies of most of the fragments, see Wiseman 1958; in addition to another composite edition and translation, BaM Beiheſt 3 provides a score as well as copies and photographs of additional identified fragments; for the most recent com- posite edition see SAA 2 6; three fragments of the oath are also know from Assur, see AfO 13, 215 and now KAL 3, 70–71. JCS 64 (2012)
Transcript of ESARHADDON’S SUCCESSION TREATY AT TELL...
87
ESARHADDON’S SUCCESSION TREATY AT TELL TAYINAT: TEXT AND COMMENTARY
Jacob Lauinger (The Johns Hopkins University)*
The Assyrian institution of the loyalty oath (adê) was an important mechanism by which the kings of the Neo-Assyrian Empire expanded their influence and maintained internal stability (for detailed introductions to the adê as instrument of empire with many textual references, see Parpola and Watanabe 1988: xv–xxv and Radner 2006a). In addition to stabilizing borders with other major powers allowing resources and attention to be focused elsewhere (e.g., Esarhaddon’s adê with Urtaku, king of Elam), an oath of loyalty by a lesser king to the Assyrian king afforded the former the military protection of the mighty empire at the same time as it allowed the latter to expand its sphere of influence at relatively little cost. Within Assyria, royal officials such as governors, priests, and scribes—and theoretically all “servants of the king”—swore oaths of loyalty that were invoked as justification for the reports and denunciations these officials sent to the king.
In addition to the references to the institution of the adê in royal inscriptions, letters, oracle queries, and other genres, the text of actual loyalty oaths are preserved on a handful of tablets (collected in SAA 2). Most of these tablets seem to be archival copies that were stored in Nineveh, but one group of at least eight tablets from Nimrud is different. These tablets record oaths taken in 672 b.c.e. promising support for the succession of Esarhaddon’s son Assurbanipal to the throne on Esarhaddon’s death.1 Because the tablets are sealed with three divine seals of the god Assur and were found in the throne room of the Ezida, the temple of Nabû, they seem to be the actual “oath tablets” known from contemporary references (tuppi adê) that were elevated by the act of sealing to the status of “tablets of destinies” (George 1986).
In all eight examples of “Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty” from Nimrud, the person taking the oath is a subject king (bēl āli) from Assyria’s eastern periphery and so is conventionally referred to as “Median.” Scholarly opinion
* It is a pleasure to acknowledge the many people involved in the excavation, documentation, and conservation of the tablet whose text is edited here. These include Amanda Lahman, the square supervisor, her assistant, and their workers; James Osborne, the area supervisor; Jennifer Jackson, the photographer; Julie Unruh and Caird “Cricket” Harbeck, conservators for the 2009–10 and 2011 seasons respectively; Stephen Batiuk, the field director; and Timothy P. Harrison, project director. I am grateful to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada for their financial support. The initial work on the text was done while I held the Gaylord and Dorothy Donnelley Research Fellowship at Corpus Christi, University of Cambridge, and it is a pleasure to acknowledge also the generous support of the Gaylord and Dorothy Donnelley Foundation. In 2011 as in years before, I am thankful for the kind hospitality of the staff of the Hatay Arkeoloji Müzesi. Karen Radner patiently answered a number of my questions on reading the text and supplied additional references, for which I extend my warmest thanks. Her individual contributions are acknowledged below, although of course I alone am responsible for any and all errors. The abbreviations used in this paper are those used in AHw and/or CAD U/W with the following additions: PNAE = K. Radner, ed. The Prosopo-graphy of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, Vol. 1, Part 1: A (Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 1988); RINAP = Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period; SAAo = State Archives of Assyria Online (<http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/saa/corpus>); T = siglum of the Tayinat ms of Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty.
1. For the original composite edition with copies of most of the fragments, see Wiseman 1958; in addition to another composite edition and translation, BaM Beiheft 3 provides a score as well as copies and photographs of additional identified fragments; for the most recent com-posite edition see SAA 2 6; three fragments of the oath are also know from Assur, see AfO 13, 215 and now KAL 3, 70–71.
JCS 64 (2012)
88 JACOB LAUINGER
obv.
ESARHADDON’S SUCCESSION TREATY AT TELL TAYINAT 89
rev.
90 JACOB LAUINGER
has varied as to whether or not the fact that extant tablets record oaths with exclusively Median subject kings is significant. For some, it is significant that the tablets were composed for “newly acquired vassal[s]” so that they ac-quired a secondary function as “vassal treaties” (Parpola and Watanabe 1988: xxix–xxxi), or restricted to a special group of Medes who served in the Assyrian heartland as the crown prince’s royal bodyguard (Liverani 1995). For others, Assurbanipal’s claim in his royal inscriptions that the oath was taken by “the people of Assyria, great and small, from the Upper to the Lower Sea” (Borger Asb. 15 A i 18–19) is enough to suggest that many more examples of Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty must have existed in antiquity, and the Median focus of the extant manuscripts is only an accident of preservation (Watanabe 1987: 4; Grayson 1991: 129).
The discussion has taken a decisive new turn with the discovery in 2009 of a new exemplar of the oath (ms T) by the Tayinat Archaeological Project as one of eleven tablets and fragments found in the inner sanctum of Building XVI, a Neo-Assyrian temple at Tell Tayinat, ancient Unqi, capital of the Neo-Assyrian province of Kullania, in the Republic of Turkey’s Hatay Province. For an overview of the entire tablet collection, a discussion of some of the historical implications raised by the discovery of ms T, and the argument that ms T and at least two manuscripts of the Mesopotamian scholarly text Iqqur īpuš found with it were actually displayed in antiquity in the temple’s inner sanctum, see Lauinger 2011. For a detailed study of the tablets’ archaeological context, see the accompanying article in this volume by Harrison and Osborne. The aim of this article is to provide a preliminary edition of the new manuscript of Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty.2
The primary work of this edition was completed during three weeks’ study of the tablet at the Hatay Arkeoloji Müzesi in July 2011 (see Lauinger 2011: 5–6 for a description of the work done in the 2009 and 2010 seasons). One of the more significant discoveries during 2011 season was that some clay fragments originally found loose in the soil underneath the tablet joined to the tablet’s obverse and preserve part of the impression of the seal of Senna-cherib known from the Nimrud manuscripts, being located in the same place on ms T as in those manuscripts. The seal impression is not the only physical feature that ms T has in common with the Nimrud manuscripts. It is similar in size, measuring 40 × 28 cm (ms 27 = 45 × 30 cm; ms 31+51 = 42.5 × 28.4 cm, and ms 36 = 42 × 28 cm, see Parpola and Watanabe 1988: xlviii), and like the Nimrud manuscripts, must be rotated along its vertical axis in order to read the reverse (note that ms T is also pierced through its horizontal axis, see Lauinger 2011: 11 with fig. 8). The text of ms T is also almost identical to that of the Nimrud manuscripts, containing the same stipulations, curses, and colophon and exhibiting the same variation in orthography and line breaks that exists between the individual Nimrud manuscripts, although one unsurprising difference is still worthy of comment here: In ms T, the treaty partners are the anonymous bēl pāh iti of the province of Kullania, sixteen additional anonymous indi-viduals or groups designated by occupation, and finally, as in the Nimrud manuscripts, “all the men of his hands, great and small, as many as there are.”
The tablet’s reverse is in much better condition than the obverse. Because the obverse was face down against the sanctum’s plaster-tiled podium, it was less exposed to the fire. Only the clay along the tablet’s top and left side was baked sufficiently to preserve text (see fig. 1). Fortunately, this area includes all of §1, and enough signs remain on the tablet’s left side that most of column i can be restored with confidence. Because the reverse faced up when the tablet toppled over in the fire that destroyed the temple, it was completely baked. It preserves most of SAA 2 6 344–670 as well as two additional curses (designated here § 54 A and B) that are lost from the Nimrud manus-cripts, the first invoking the pair Adad and Šāla of Kurbaʾil and the second invoking the goddess Šarrat-Ekron (a
2. Ms T will be published more fully in the future with hand copies and photographs alongside full editions of the ten other texts with which it was found. In this regard, a brief justification of the decision to publish a preliminary edition of the text is in order. The justification is three-fold. First, the Tayinat Archaeological Project desires to provide a published record of the work on the Tayinat tablets at each stage of the process in order that the process itself be documented in a scientific manner (a record begun with Lauinger 2011); second, in recognition of the fact that work on the tablet may not resume for an unknown duration until further conservation is complete (see below), it seems appro-priate to make the contents of the text available to the scholarly community without delay; and third, in further recognition of the fact that this conservation necessarily carries with it some small chance of damage to the text, it seems responsible to produce an edition of the text as soon as possible after autopsy.
ESARHADDON’S SUCCESSION TREATY AT TELL TAYINAT 91
goddess unattested in cuneiform to my knowledge but undoubtedly to be identified with the Lady of Ekron known from the Ekron inscription, see the note to line vi 47).
However, because of the accidental and incomplete firing of the tablet, its physical condition is very unstable. The tablet consists of a core of unbaked and disintegrating clay that is held in place by a thin, partial shell of baked clay (i.e., the reverse and those portions of the obverse that remain). For this reason, the conservators decided that once the tablet had been studied during the 2011 season, it should remain in stable storage until long-term protection measures can be put in place.
Text and Commentary3
Transliteration
obv.Captioni T caption 1 NA4.KIŠIB da-šur4 LUGAL DINGIR.MEŠiiT caption 2 EN KUR.KUR ša [la šu-un-né-e]iiiT caption 3 [NA4].KIŠIB ⌈NUN-e GAL-e⌉ AD DINGIR.MEŠivT caption 4 ša [l]a ⌈pa⌉-qa-a-ri§ 11T i 1 a-de-e ša maš-šur-PAP-AŠ MAN KUR aš-šur2T i 2 DUMU md30-PAP.MEŠ-SU MAN KUR aš-šur3T i 3 TA lúEN.NAM KUR ku-na-⌈li⌉-a4T i 4 TA lú2-e lúGAL É4T i 5 ⌈lúA⌉.BA.MEŠ lúDIB.PA.MEŠ lú3.U5.MEŠ4T i 6 lúGAL URU.MEŠ lúmu-tir tè-me4
3. Section numbers follow the composite edition SAA 2 6, and section rulings (not indicated) are present in ms T as in SAA 2 6 unless othe-rwise noted. Each line of text is accompanied by two numbers. The first refers to the corresponding line number in SAA 2 6, the second refers to the line’s position in ms T. As ms T duplicates the text of the Nimrud manuscripts, I have generally taken the liberty of restoring missing text for the sake of intelligibility. The restoration follows SAA 2 6, but the possibility of orthographic variants must be acknowledged. In some lines where spacing has made restoration uncertain, I have offered none, and these uncertainties are discussed in the comments to such lines. I have tried to follow SAA 2 6 in transliterating and normalizing signs and words that are ambiguous with regard to dialect as Assyrian (e.g. le-kul not li-kul). Translation and commentary appears after the transliteration of the entire text, although I translate only those portions of the text that are not preserved or are poorly preserved in SAA 2 6 and commentary has been kept to a minimum (e.g., orthographic variants of the sort that exist between the Nimrud manuscripts are generally not mentioned). I have tried to be consistent with SAA 2 6 and the glossary of SAAo more generally in the terms chosen for translation (i.e., DUMU MAN GAL šá É UŠ-ti is translated as “the great crown prince designate”). Manuscripts from Nimrud are referred to by the abbreviated excavation numbers listed in Wiseman 1958: 92–99 and Watanabe 1987: 47–52.
92 JACOB LAUINGER
T i 7 lúGAR-nu.MEŠ lúGAL-ki-sir.MEŠ4T i 8 lúEN gišGIGIR.MEŠ lúEN pet-⌈hal-la⌉-ti4T i 9 lúzak-ku-e lúkal-la-b[a]-⌈ni⌉4T i 10 lú[u]m-ma-a-ni lú⌈a⌉-[ri?-ti?]4–5T i 11 lú⌈kit⌉-ki-tu-u TA lúÉRIN.MEŠ [ŠUII-šú gab-bu]5T i 12 ⌈TUR u GAL⌉ mal ba-[šú-u](Seal of Sennacherib)§ 1 (continued)9–10T i 13 [is-s]i-šú-nu ÉRIN.MEŠ-šú-nu ša EGIR a-de-e10 and 6T i 14 ina [u4]-me ⌈sa⌉-a-ti ib-ba-šu-ni TA na-pa-aḫ dUTU-ši6–7T i 15 [x] a-di e-reb dUTU-ši am-mar maš-šur-PAP-AŠ7–8T i 16 MAN KUR aš-šur LUGAL-u-tú EN-u-tú ina UGU-h i-šú-nu8 and 11T i 17 up-pa-áš-u-ni ina UGU maš-šur-DÙ-A DUMU MAN GAL-u11–12T i 18 šá É UŠ-te DUMU maš-šur-PAP-AŠ MAN KUR aš-šur12T i 19 šá [ina UGU]-h i-šú a-de-e is-si-ku-<nu> iš-kun-u-[ni]§ 213–14T i 20 [ina IGI mulSAG].⌈ME.GAR mul⌉dil-bat mulUDU.IDIM.SAG.[UŠ]14–15T i 21 ⌈mulUDU.IDIM.GU4.UD mul⌈sal-bat-a-nu⌉ m[ulGAG.SI.SÁ]16T i 22 [ina IGI d]aš-šur ⌈d⌉a-⌈num⌉ dBAD ⌈d⌉[É.A]17T i 23 d30 dUT[U] dIM dMES dPA d[…]19T i 24 dše-ru-u-⌈a⌉ dbe-let-DINGIR.MEŠ DINGIR […]21–22T i 25 AN-e KI.⌈TIM⌉ DINGIR.MEŠ ina KUR ⌈aš-šur⌉ [DINGIR.MEŠ]22–23T i 26 ⌈KUR⌉ šu-me-ri ⌈u⌉ URU.KI ⌈DINGIR⌉.[MEŠ KUR.KUR]23T i 27 ka-li-šú-n[u u]-dan-nin-[u-ni]24T i 28 is-ba-tú (space) [iš-ku-nu-ni]§ 3
ESARHADDON’S SUCCESSION TREATY AT TELL TAYINAT 93
25T i 29 <d>aš-šur AD DINGIR.MEŠ EN KUR.KU[R ti-tam-ma]26–27T i 30 ⌈da⌉-num dBAD dÉ.A d3[0 …]28T i 31 ⌈d⌉[…] dURAŠ d⌈U⌉.[GUR MIN]29T i 32 ⌈d⌉NIN.L[ÍL dše-r]u-u-a ⌈d⌉[be-let-DINGIR.MEŠ MIN]30T i 33 d15 ⌈šá⌉ ur[uNINAk]i d15 ⌈ša arba⌉-[ìl MIN]?T i 34 DINGIR.MEŠ ⌈ka-li⌉-šú-nu šá uru[…]31T i 35 DINGIR.MEŠ ⌈ka-li-šú⌉-nu šá uruŠÀ-U[RU …]32–33T i 36 DINGIR.MEŠ DÙ-šú-nu š[a uruNIN]A?ki
MIN DINGIR.MEŠ ⌈DÙ⌉ […]34?T i 37 ⌈x x⌉ […] ⌈x x⌉ […]35?T i 38 DINGIR.MEŠ […](Approximately five lines not preserved)40A?T i 44' [DINGIR].⌈MEŠ⌉ […]40B?T i 45' ⌈DINGIR.MEŠ⌉ […]§ 441T i 46' a-de-e [ša maš-šur-PAB-AŠ MAN KUR aš-šur ina IGI DINGIR.MEŠ GAL.MEŠ]42T i 47' šá AN-e [ u KI.TIM is-si-ku-nu iš-ku-nu-u-ni]43T i 48' ša ina U[GU ...] 44?T i 49' ša m[…]45?T i 50' ša ⌈É?⌉ […]47?T i 51' ina? giš?[GU.zA …]?T i 52' ⌈x x⌉ […](approximately 9 lines missing)58T i 62' ⌈te⌉-[na-a-ni tu-šá-an-na-a-ni šum-ma maš-šur-DÙ-A]58T i 63' DUMU [MAN GAL-u šá É UŠ-ti]59T i 64' ša m[aš-šur-PAP-AŠ MAN KUR aš-šur EN-ku-nu]
94 JACOB LAUINGER
60T i 65' ⌈ú⌉-k[al-lim-(u)-ka-nu-ni h a-an-nu-um-ma la ta-da-gal-a-ni]61T i 66' LUGAL-u-t[u EN-u-tu šá KUR aš-šur]61T i 67' ina ⌈UGU-h i⌉-[ku-nu la ú-pa-áš-u-ni]§ 562T i 68' ⌈šum-ma⌉ […]?T i 69' ⌈x⌉ […]?T i 70' ⌈x⌉ […]?T i 71' ⌈x⌉ […]65–66T i 72' ⌈la ta-na-sar-a-ni⌉ [ina ŠÀ-bi-šú tu-ta-h a-ta-a-ni]66–67T i 73' ⌈ŠUII⌉-ku-⌈nu⌉ ina HUL-t[i ina ŠÀ-bi-šú tu-bal-a-ni]67–68T i 74' [ep-šú] bar-tú a-bu-tú l[a DÙG.GA-tú la SIG5-tú]68-69T i 75' ⌈te-pa-šá-niš-šú-ni⌉ ina LUGAL-t[i KUR aš-šur tu-nak-ka-ra-šú-u-ni]69–70T i 76' ⌈TA⌉ ŠÀ-bi ŠEŠ.MEŠ-šú GAL.MEŠ ⌈TUR.MEŠ⌉ [ina ku-mu-šú gišGU.zA]70–71T i 77' KUR aš-šurki? t[u-šá-as]-bat-a-[ni LUGAL MAN-ma]71T i 78' ⌈EN⌉ MAN-ma ina ⌈UGU⌉-h i-ku-nu ⌈ta-šá-kan-a⌉-[ni]72T i 79' a-na ⌈LUGAL⌉ MAN-ma EN MAN-ma ma-[mì]-tú ta-tam-ma-a-n[i]§ 673T i 80' ⌈šum-ma at-tu⌉-nu ⌈a-bu-tú la x (x)-tú la ba-ni-tú⌉(end column i)74T ii 1 la ta-ri-is-su šá [e-peš LUGAL-te ina UGU maš-šur-DÙ-A]75T ii 2 DUM[U] LUGAL <GAL> šá É UŠ-te l[a tar-sa-tú-u-ni la ta-bat-u-ni]76–77T ii 3 lu-u ina pi-i ŠEŠ.M[EŠ-šú ŠEŠ.MEŠ AD.MEŠ-šú DUMU ŠEŠ.MEŠ AD.MEŠ-šú qin-ni-šú
NUMUN É AD-šú]77–78T ii 4 lu-u ina pi-⌈i⌉ [lúGAL.MEŠ lúNAM.MEŠ lu-u ina pi-i lúšá ziq-ni]78–79?T ii 5 lúS[AG …](The remainder of the column is not preserved)
ESARHADDON’S SUCCESSION TREATY AT TELL TAYINAT 95
§ 15?T iii 1 […]T iii 2 […]T iii 3 […] T iii 4 […]178–179?T iii 5 ⌈ina UGU maš-šur-DÙ-A DUMU MAN GAL⌉ [šá É UŠ-ti la tal-lak-a-ni-ni]§ 16?T iii 6 […]T iii 7 […]T iii 8 […]T iii 9 […]T iii 10 […]T iii 11 […]T iii 12 […](The remainder of the column is not preserved)§ 22 257–258T iv 1 la ta-[t]a-bak-a-ni ⌈gi⌉-[im]-lu [šá m]aš-šur-DÙ-A258–259T iv 2 DUMU LU[GAL G]AL-u šá É UŠ-te la ⌈tu-tar-ra⌉-a-ni-ni§ 23259–260T iv 3 ⌈šum-ma⌉ [at]-⌈tu-nu m⌉[aš-šu]r-DÙ-[A DUMU] MAN GAL šá É UŠ-te 261–262T iv 4 ⌈DUMU⌉ [maš-šur-PAP]-AŠ MAN KUR aš-šur [EN-ku]-nu šam-mu šá mu-a-⌈ti-šú⌉262–263T iv 5 ⌈tu-šá-kal⌉-[a]-⌈šú⌉-u-ni ⌈ta⌉-[šá]-⌈qi-a-šú⌉-ú-ni263–264T iv 6 [ta-pa-šá-šá-šú-u-ni kis-pi] ⌈te⌉-[p]a-šá-niš-šú-u-ni264–265T iv 7 [DINGIR.MEŠ u dIŠ.TAR is-si-šú tu-šá-za]-na-a-ni§ 24266T iv 8 [šum-ma at-tu-nu] ⌈a⌉-na maš-šur-[DÙ]-A266T iv 9 [DUMU MAN GAL-u] ⌈šá É UŠ⌉-te267T iv 10 [DUMU maš-šur-PAP-AŠ MAN KUR aš-šur EN]-ku-nu268T iv 11 [ki-i nap-šá-te-ku-nu la tar-ʾa-ma-a]-ni(The remainder of the column is not preserved)rev.§ 29 344–345T v 1 at-tu-nu ta-šam!-ma-a-n[i l]a DÙG.GA-⌈tú⌉ šá ŠEŠ.MEŠ-šú345–346
96 JACOB LAUINGER
T v 2 ina IGI-šú ta-qab-ba-a-ni ⌈TA IGI⌉ ŠEŠ.⌈MEŠ⌉-šú346–347T v 3 ta-par-ra-sa-šú-u-ni šum-ma qa-bi-a-[n]u-ti347–348T v 4 šá a-bu-tú an-ni-tú iq-ba-ka-nu-u-ni348–349T v 5 tu-ra-ma-šú-u-ni šum-ma la tal-lak-⌈a-ni-ni⌉349–350T v 6 a-na maš-šur-DÙ-A DUMU MAN GAL-u šá É UŠ-te350–351T v 7 la ta-qab-ba-a-ni ma-a AD-ka a-de-e351–352T v 8 ina UGU-h i is-si-ni is-sa-kan ú-tam-ma-na-a-ši§ 30 353T v 9 šum-ma ta-da-ga-la a-na maš-šur-DÙ-A DUMU MAN353-54T v 10 GAL-u šá É UŠ-te ŠEŠ.MEŠ-šú la pal-h u-uš354–355T v 11 la kan-šu-uš EN.NUN-šú la i-na-su-ru at-tu-⌈nu⌉356T v 12 ki ra-ma-ni-ku-nu sa-a-li la ta-ga-ra-šú-nu-ni357T v 13 pu-luh -tú NÍG.BA.MEŠ-te ina ŠÀ-⌈bi⌉-šú-nu358T v 14 la tu-še-rab-a-ni ma-a AD-⌈ku-nu⌉ ina ŠÀ-bi358–359T v 15 a-de-e is-sa-tar is-sa-kan ú-[t]am-ma-na-a-ši§ 30a353T v 16 šum-ma ta-da-ga-la a-na <m>aš-šur-(erasure)-DÙ-A353–354T v 17 DUMU LUGAL GAL-u šá É UŠ-ti ŠEŠ.MEŠ-(erasure)-šú354–355T v 18 ⌈la pal-h u-uš la⌉ kan-šú-⌈uš⌉ EN.NUN-šú la i-na-su-[r]u355–356T v 19 at-tu-nu ki ra-[ma-ni-ku-nu] sa-a-li 356–357T v 20 la ta-ga-ra-šú-nu-ni pu-⌈luh -tú NÍG.BA.MEŠ-te⌉357–358T v 21 ina ŠÀ-bi-šú-nu la tu-še-rab-a-n[i]358–359T v 22 ma-a AD-ku-nu ina ŠÀ a-de-e is-sa-tar359T v 23 is-sa-kan ú-tam-ma-na-a-ši§ 31360
ESARHADDON’S SUCCESSION TREATY AT TELL TAYINAT 97
T v 24 šum-ma at-tu-nu ki-ma <m>aš-šur-PAB-AŠ MAN KUR aš-šurki
360–361T v 25 EN-ku-nu a-na šim-ti it-ta-lak361–362T v 26 maš-šur-DÙ-A DUMU MAN GAL-u šá É UŠ-ti362T v 27 ina gišGU.zA LUGAL-ti it-tu-šib363T v 28 a-bu-tú la DÙG.GA-tú šá ŠE[Š.M]EŠ-šú DUMU AMA-šú364T v 29 ina IGI ŠEŠ-šú-nu ta-qab-ba-a-ni ⌈tu-šá⌉-an-za-ra-ni365T v 30 ma ŠUII-ka ina HUL-ti ina ŠÀ-bi-šú-nu ú-bíl366–367T v 31 šum-ma TA IGI maš-šur-DÙ-A DUMU MAN GAL šá É UŠ-ti367–368T v 32 tu-nak-kar-a-šá-nu-u-ni di-ib-bi-šú-nu368-69T v 33 ⌈la SIG5.MEŠ ina IGI⌉ ŠEŠ-šú-nu ta-qa-ba-a-ni369–370T v 34 ma-za-su šá maš-šur-PAP-AŠ MAN KUR aš-šur AD-šú-nu u-kal-lim-u-šá-nu-⌈ni⌉370–371T v 35 ina IGI maš-šur-DÙ-A DUMU MAN GAL-u šá ⌈É⌉ UŠ-te ta-qab-ba-a-ni372T v 36 TA ŠÀ ma-za-⌈sú⌉-šú-nu ú-na-⌈kar⌉-u-šá-nu-ni§ 32373 T v 37 šum-ma at-tu-nu sar-b[u? ša ina UGU DINGIR.ME]Š šá UKKIN374T v 38 lu pa-né-ku-nu lu ŠUII-ku-⌈nu⌉ [(x) x x x k]u-nu375–376T v 39 ta-pa-šá-šá-ni ina si-qi-ku-nu t[a-rak-kas-a-ni]376T v 40 šá ma-mit pa-šá-ri! te-p[a]-[šá-a-ni]§ 33377T v 41 šum-ma at-tu-nu tur-tu tu-tar-ra-a-ni378–379T v 42 ma-mit ta-pa-šar-a-ni ši-in-ga-ti ⌈me⌉-me-né379T v 43 šá tur-ti tur-ri ma-mit pa-ša-ri ta-h a-sa-sa-ni-ni380T v 44 [t]e-ep-pa-šá-a-ni ta-mì-tú an-ni-tú a-na maš-šur-DÙ-⌈A⌉380–381T v 45 DUMU MAN GAL-u šá É UŠ-te DUMU maš-šur-PAP-AŠ MAN KUR aš-šur381–382T v 46 EN-ku-nu TA u4-me an-ni-e a-di šá EGIR a-de-e
98 JACOB LAUINGER
383–384T v 47 ib-ba-šú-u-ni at-tu-nu DUMU.⌈MEŠ⌉-ku-nu <ša> a-na u4-me384T v 48 sa-a-ti ib-ba-šú-u-ni ta-ʾa-ku-nu§ 34385T v 49 šum-ma at-tu-⌈nu⌉ ki ina kaq-qar ta-mì-ti385–386T v 50 ⌈an⌉-ni-ti ta-za-za-⌈a⌉-ni ta-mì-tú šá ⌈da⌉-bab-ti386–387T v 51 ⌈šap⌉-ti ta-tam-ma-ni ina ⌈gu⌉-mur-ti ŠÀ-ku-nu387T v 52 la ⌈ta-tam-ma⌉-a-ni a-na [DUMU.MEŠ]-ku-nu387–388T v 53 šá EGIR a-de-e ib-ba-áš-⌈šú⌉-[u]-⌈ni⌉388–389T v 54 la tu-šal-ma-da-a-ni šum-ma at-tu-nu389–390T v 55 GIG la SIKIL ina UGU ra-ma-ni-ku-⌈nu⌉ ta-šá-kan-a-⌈ni⌉390–391T v 56 ina ŠÀ a-de-e šá maš-šur-PAP-AŠ MAN KUR aš-šur šá ina UGU maš-šur-DÙ-A391–392 T v 57 DUMU MAN GAL šá É UŠ-te la te-er-rab-a-ni393T v 58 a-na EGIR u4-me a-na u4-me sa-a-ti aš-šur DINGIR-ku-nu394T v 59 maš-šur-DÙ-A DUMU MAN GAL šá É UŠ-te E[N]-ku-nu395–396T v 60 ⌈DUMU⌉.MEŠ-ku-nu DUMU.DUMU.MEŠ-ku-nu a-⌈na DUMU⌉.MEŠ-šú ⌈lip⌉-lu-h u§ 35397–398T v 61 šá ma-mit tup-pi an-ni-e e-nu-u e-gu-u ⌈i-h at-tu⌉398–399T v 62 i-pa-sa-su AD EN a!(text: e)-de-e DINGIR.MEŠ GAL.MEŠ ⌈e-te⌉-qu399–400T v 63 i-par-ra-su ma-mit-su-un gab-ba-šú-nu ⌈tup-pi⌉400–401T v 64 a-de-e an-ni-e tup-pi aš-šur MAN ⌈DINGIR⌉.MEŠ u DINGIR.⌈MEŠ⌉401–402T v 65 ⌈GAL.MEŠ EN.<MEŠ>⌉-iá ú-na-kar-u-ma sa-lam maš-šur-PAP-⌈AŠ⌉402–403T v 66 MAN KUR aš-šur ⌈sa-lam maš-šur-DÙ-A DUMU MAN⌉ GAL ša É UŠ-t[e]404T v 67 lu s a-lam ⌈ŠEŠ.MEŠ⌉-šú DUMU.NITA.MEŠ-šú ša ⌈ina UGU⌉-h [i-šu]404–405T v 68 ú-na-kar-u-ni NA4.KIŠIB <NUN> GAL-e an-ni-e405–406
ESARHADDON’S SUCCESSION TREATY AT TELL TAYINAT 99
T v 69 šá a-de-e šá maš-šur-DÙ-A DUMU MAN GAL šá É UŠ-te406?T v 70 DUMU maš-šur-PAP-AŠ MAN KUR aš-šur EN-ku-nu ina ŠÀ šá-tir-u-ni407–408T v 71 ina NA4.KIŠIB šá aš-šur LUGAL DINGIR.MEŠ ka-nik-u-ni408–409T v 72 ina IGI-ku-nu šá-kín-u-ni ki DINGIR-ku-nu la ta-na-⌈sar⌉-a-ni§ 36410T v 73 šum-ma at-tu-nu tu-na-kar-a-ni ina dGIŠ.BAR411T v 74 ⌈ta⌉-pa-qid-da-a-ni a-na A.MEŠ ta-na-da-a-ni412T v 75 ina ep-⌈ri⌉ ta-kàt-ta-ma-a-ni ina mim-ma412–413T v 76 ši-pir ⌈ni-kil-ti⌉ ta-bat-a-ni tu-h al-la-qa-a-ni413T v 77 ta-sa-⌈pa⌉-na-a-ni§ 37414T v 78 daš-šur MAN DINGIR.MEŠ ⌈mu⌉-šim NAM.MEŠ414–415T v 79 ši-mat míHUL! la DÙG.GA-ti li-ši-im-ku-nu§ 38 417T v 80 dNI[N].LÍL h i-ir-tú na-ram-ta-šú417–418T v 81 a-m[a]-ti-ku-nu li-⌈lam⌉-mì-in418T v 82 a-a i-si-ba-ta a-bu-tú-ku-nu§ 38 A418AT v 83 d⌈a⌉-num MAN DINGIR.<MEŠ> GIG ta-n[i]-h u418A–BT v 84 di-⌈ʾu⌉-u di-lip-tú ni-sa-tú la DÙG.⌈GA UzU⌉418B–CT v 85 ⌈UGU⌉ nap-h ar É.MEŠ-ku-nu l[i-šá-az-nin]§ 39419T v 86 d30 na-nar AN-[e u KI.TIM ina SAHAR.ŠUB-bu]420T v 87 li-h al-lip-ku-nu [ina IGI DINGIR.MEŠ u LUGAL]420–421T v 88 ⌈e-re⌉-eb-ku-nu [a-a iq-bi ki-ma šér-re]-me421T v 89 ⌈MAŠ.DÀ⌉ ED[IN ru-up]-da§ 40
100 JACOB LAUINGER
422T v 90 […] ⌈x⌉ [x](remainder of column v not preserved = sections § 41–42, approximately 8 lines)§ 43431T vi 1 dSAG.ME.[GAR EN DI]NGIR.MEŠ MAH e-rab dE[N]431–432T vi 2 ina É.sag-gíl ⌈a⌉-a ú!(text: i)-kal-lim-ku-⌈nu⌉432T vi 3 ma li-h [al]-li-qa nap-šat-ku-⌈un⌉§ 44433T vi 4 dAMAR.UTU [I]BILA reš-tu-ú h i-⌈tu⌉433T vi 5 ⌈kab⌉-tú [m]a-mit la pa-⌈šá⌉-a-ri434T vi 6 a-na ⌈šim⌉-ti-ku-nu ⌈li⌉-ši-im§ 45435 T vi 7 dNUMUN-DÙ-tú na-⌈di⌉-na-at MU u NUMUN435–436T vi 8 MU-ku-nu NUMUN-a-ku-[n]u ina KUR li-h al-liq-qi§ 46437T vi 9 dbe-let-DINGIR.MEŠ EN-⌈lat⌉ nab-ni-ti ta-lit-tú437–438T vi 10 ina KUR-ku-nu lip-ru-⌈us⌉ ik-kil GENNA438–439T vi 11 u la-ke-e ina SILA re-[b]i-ti li!(text: la)-iz-za-ma-a439T vi 12 ta-ret-ku-un§ 47440T vi 13 dIM GÚ.G[AL AN]-e KI.TIM ŠÈG šam-ut-e440–441T vi 14 ina KUR-ku-nu li[p-r]u-us ta-me-ra-a-ti-ku-nu441T vi 15 li-iz-za-am-[m]a-a a-⌈na⌉ la DÙG.GA442T vi 16 ina ri-ih -si da[n-ni K]UR-ku-⌈nu⌉ li-ir-h i-is442–43T vi 17 BURU5 mu-sa-h i-ir [KUR BUR]U14-[k]u-nu li-kul443–444T vi 18 ik-kil NA4.UR5 u [NINDU ina É.MEŠ-ku-nu] ⌈a-a ib-ši⌉444–445T vi 19 ŠE.PAD.MEŠ ⌈a-na te-a-ni⌉ lu tah -[li]-qa-ku-nu445–446
ESARHADDON’S SUCCESSION TREATY AT TELL TAYINAT 101
T vi 20 ku-um ŠE.PAD.MEŠ es-mat-tú-ku-n[u] DUMU.MEŠ-ku-nu446T vi 21 DUMU.MUNUS.MEŠ-e-ku-nu li-t[e]-e-nu446–447T vi 22 ki-sir šá ŠU.SI.MEŠ-e-ku-nu ina l[e]-e-ši447T vi 23 ⌈lu⌉ la i-ta-bu qa-qa-⌈a⌉-nu447T vi 24 TA ŠÀ a-su-da-a-ti-ku-n[u] NÍG.SILA11.GÁ448T vi 25 le-kul ⌈AMA⌉ UGU DUMU.MUNUS-ti-⌈šá⌉ KÁ-šá448–449T vi 26 le-di-il ina bu-ri-ku-nu Uz[U] DUMU.MEŠ-ku-nu449–450T vi 27 ak-la ina bu-bu-u-⌈ti h u-šah ⌉-h i450T vi 28 LÚ UzU LÚ le-kul LÚ KUŠ LÚ451T vi 29 li-la-biš UzU.M[EŠ]-ku-nu [U]R.GI7.MEŠ451–452T vi 30 ŠAH.MEŠ le-ku-[l]u e-⌈tam⌉-ma-ku-⌈nu⌉452T vi 31 pa-qi-du na-⌈aq⌉ <<TA>> A a-a ir-š[i]§ 48 453T vi 32 dIŠ.TAR be-let M[URU]B4 MÈ ina MÈ dan-ni453–454T vi 33 gišBAN-ku-nu liš-b[i]r ⌈i⌉-di-ku-nu lik-si454T vi 34 ina KI.TA l[úKÚR-ku-n]u lu li-še-šib-ku-nu§ 49455T vi 35 dU.GUR qar-⌈rad⌉ DINGIR ina ⌈GÍR⌉-šú la ga-mì-li455–456T vi 36 nap-šat-ku-nu li-bal-li šag-gaš-tú456T vi 37 NAM.ÚŠ.MEŠ ina ŠÀ-ku-n[u] [liš]-⌈kun⌉§ 50457–458T vi 38 ⌈dNIN⌉.LÍL a-ši-bát <uru>NINAk[i G]ÍR h a-an-tu458T vi 39 it-ti-ku-nu li-ir-ku-us§ 51459–460T vi 40 d15 a-ši-bát uruarba-ìl ARHUŠ4 [gi]m-lu a-a i-šá-kan UGU-ku-un§ 52461
102 JACOB LAUINGER
T vi 41 dgu-la a-zu-gal-l[a-t]ú GAL-tú GI[G] ta-né-h u ina ŠÀ-bi-ku-nu462T vi 42 si-mu la-zu ina zu-uʾ-r[i!?]-⌈ku⌉-nu li-šab-[š]i ÚŠ.MEŠ šar-ku463T vi 43 ki-ma A.MEŠ ru-[u]n-ka§ 54466T vi 44 da-ra-miš EN URU KUR SI EN URU KUR ⌈az-a-i?⌉ A.MEŠ SIG7.MEŠ li-mal-li-⌈ku-nu⌉§ 54 AT vi 45 dIM d<<DIŠ>>ša-la šá urukur-ba-ìl si-⌈ih -lu⌉ UzU.MEŠT vi 46 ⌈la DÙG.GA⌉ ina ⌈zu⌉-mur KUR-ku-[n]u li-šab-ši§ 54 BT vi 47 dšar-rat-a-am-qár-⌈ru-u-na⌉ TA ŠÀ-ku-[n]u li-šá-h i-h a tul-t[u]§ 54 C467T vi 48 dba-a-a-ti!(text: bal)-DINGIR <d>a-na-an-ti-⌈d⌉ba-a-a-ti-DINGIR468T vi 49 ina ŠUII UR.MAH a-ki-li lim!-nu-ku-nu§ 55469–470T vi 50 dkù-bába dkar-h u-h a šá urugar-⌈ga⌉-miš ri!?-im-tu470–471T vi 51 dan-nu ina ŠÀ-ku-nu liš-kun ⌈ÚŠ⌉.MEŠ-ku-nu ki-m[a t]i-ki ina qaq-qar lit-tu-tuk!
§ 56 472T vi 52 DINGIR.MEŠ GAL.MEŠ šá AN-e [K]I.TIM a-ši-bu-te472–473T vi 53 kib-ra-a-ti ma-la ina [t]up-pi an-ni-e473–474T vi 54 MU-šú-<nu> zak-ru lim-h a-⌈su⌉-ku-u-nu474–475T vi 55 li-kal-mu-ku-nu a-ra-[t]ú ma-ru-uš-tú475–476T vi 56 ag-giš li-ru-ru-ku-[n]u e-liš ina TI.LA.MEŠ476–477T vi 57 li-sa-h u-u-ku-nu šap-liš ina KI.TIM e-⌈tam⌉-ma-ku-nu477–478T vi 58 A.MEŠ li-za-mu-u GIŠ.⌈MI⌉ [u] Ú.DA lik-ta-še-du-ku-nu478–479T vi 59 a-na pu-uz-ri šá-h a-ti ⌈la⌉ ta-nem-mì-da479–480T vi 60 ⌈NINDA.MEŠ⌉ u A.MEŠ li-zi-bu-[k]u-nu ⌈su-un-qu h u-šah -h u⌉480–481T vi 61 bu-bu-tú mu-ta-nu ina IGI-⌈ku⌉-nu a-a ip-pi-tir481–482T vi 62 ⌈si-si⌉ šá ar-da-ti-ku-n[u] ⌈mat-nat šá lúGURUŠ-ku-nu⌉482
ESARHADDON’S SUCCESSION TREATY AT TELL TAYINAT 103
T vi 63 ina ni-til IGIII.MEŠ -ku-nu UR.GI7.MEŠ ŠAH.MEŠ483T vi 64 ina ⌈re⌉-bit uruaš-šur ⌈li⌉-in-da-šá-ru483–484T vi 65 lúÚŠ.MEŠ-ku-⌈nu KI⌉.TIM a-a ⌈im⌉-h ur ina kar-ši UR.GI7.MEŠ484–485T vi 66 ŠAH.MEŠ lu na-⌈aq!⌉-bar-ku-n[u] u4-me.MEŠ-ku-⌈nu⌉ lu e-tu-u485T vi 67 MU.MEŠ-ku-nu lu ek-⌈la⌉ ek-le-ti486T vi 68 la na-ma-ri a-na ⌈šim⌉-ti-ku-nu li-ši-mu487T vi 69 ina ta-né-h i di-lip-ti n[a]-piš-ti-ku-nu ⌈liq-ti⌉488T vi 70 U4.NÁ.ÀM a-bu-bu la mah -ru ul-tú KI.TIM489T vi 71 li-la-am-ma na-aš-pan-ta-[k]u-nu liš-(erasure)-kun489–490T vi 72 mim-ma DÙG.GA lu ik-kib-ku-nu mim-ma GIG lu ši-mat-ku-nu490T vi 73 qi-i-ru ku-up-ru lu ⌈ma⌉-ka-la-ku-nu491T vi 74 KÀŠ.ANŠE<.NÍTA> lu maš-qit-ku-nu nap-tu lu pi-iš-šat-ku-nu492T vi 75 e-la-pu-u šá ÍD lu tak-ti-im-ku-nu493T vi 76 še-e-du ú-tuk-ku ⌈MÁŠKIM⌉ [l]em-nu É-ku-nu li-h i-ru§ 57494T vi 77 DINGIR.MEŠ an-nu-ti lid-gu-lu šum-ma a-né-ni494–495T vi 78 ina UGU maš-šur-PAP-AŠ MAN KUR aš-šur ù maš-šur-DÙ-A DUMU MAN GA[L]-⌈u⌉495–496T vi 79 šá É UŠ-te u ŠEŠ.MEŠ-šú DUMU AMA-[šú]496T vi 80 šá maš-šur-DÙ-A DUMU MAN GAL-u šá É UŠ-t[e]497T vi 81 u re-eh -ti DUMU.MEŠ si-it lib-bi šá maš-šur-[PAP]-AŠ497–498T vi 82 ⌈MAN KUR aš-šur si-h u⌉ bar-tú né-ep-pa-áš-u-[n]i498–499T vi 83 [pi-i-ni TA lúKÚ]R-šú ni-ša-kan-u-[n]i499–500T vi 84 ⌈šum-ma⌉ [mu-šam-h i]-su-u-te mu-šad-bi-bu-⌈ti⌉500–501T vi 85 ⌈li-ih ⌉-[šu ša] a-mat HUL.⌈TIM⌉501–502
104 JACOB LAUINGER
T vi 86 ⌈la DÙG.GA⌉ [la] ⌈ba⌉-ni-tú da-bab sur-ra-⌈a⌉-te502–503T vi 87 ⌈la ki-na-a-te⌉ [šá ina UG]U maš-šur-DÙ-A DUMU MAN ⌈GAL⌉-u503–504T vi 88 ⌈šá É UŠ-te u ŠEŠ⌉.[MEŠ]-šú DUMU ⌈AMA⌉-šú504–505T vi 89 ⌈šá⌉ maš-šur-DÙ-A DUMU MAN GAL-u šá [É UŠ-te ni-šam]-mu-u-ni505–506T vi 90 [nu]-pa-za-⌈ar⌉-u-ni a-[na maš-šur-DÙ-A DUMU] MAN GAL-u506–507T vi 91 [šá É UŠ-t]e EN-in-⌈ni⌉ [la ni-qa]-bu-u-ni507–508T vi 92 [u4-me am-mar] a-né-ni [DUMU.MEŠ-ni DUMU.DUM]U.MEŠ-ni508T vi 93 [bal-ta-a-ni-ni maš-šur-DÙ-A DUMU MAN] GAL-u(The remainder of column not preserved, approximately four or five lines missing)§ 58 513T vii 1 [š]um-ma at-tu-nu ina ŠÀ ⌈a-de⌉-[e an-nu-te šá maš-šur-PAP-AŠ]513–514T vii 2 [M]AN KUR aš-šur ina UGU maš-šur-DÙ-A DU[MU MAN GAL-u šá] ⌈É-UŠ-te⌉515T vii 3 ⌈ù⌉ ŠEŠ.MEŠ-šú DUMU AM[A-šú šá maš-šur-DÙ-A]515–516T vii 4 [DU]MU MAN GAL-u šá É UŠ-⌈te u⌉ [re]-⌈eh -ti DUMU⌉.[MEŠ]516–517T vii 5 [s]i-it ŠÀ-bi šá maš-šur-[PAP-A]Š MAN K[UR aš-šur] ⌈EN⌉-[ku]-⌈nu⌉517T vii 6 <<⌈a⌉-de-e>> is-si-ku-[nu i]š-k[un]-u-ni517–518T vii 7 ⌈ta-h a-ta-a-ni⌉ d[aš-šur AD] DINGIR.MEŠ [G]AL.MEŠ518T vii 8 [ina] gišTUKUL.MEŠ-šú ⌈e⌉-[zu]-ti li-⌈šam⌉-qit-ku-nu§ 59519T vii 9 ⌈d⌉IGI.DU EN a-šá-⌈re⌉-du UzU.MEŠ-ku-nu520T vii 10 [T]I8
mušen zi-i-bu li-šá-kil§ 60521–522T vii 11 ⌈d⌉É.A MAN zU.AB EN IDIM A.M[EŠ] la ba-la-ti liš-<te>-šir4-ku-nu522T vii 12 ⌈a⌉-ga-nu-til-la-a ⌈li⌉-mal-li-ku-nu§ 61523T vii 13 [D]INGIR.MEŠ GAL.MEŠ šá AN-⌈e⌉ KI.TIM A.MEŠ u ì.GIŠ523
ESARHADDON’S SUCCESSION TREATY AT TELL TAYINAT 105
T vii 14 ⌈a⌉-na NÍG.GIG-ku-nu ⌈liš⌉-ku-nu§ 62524T vii 15 ⌈d⌉GIŠ.BAR na-din ma-ka-[l]i ⌈a⌉-na DINGIR.MEŠ GAL.MEŠ525T vii 16 [M]U.MEŠ-ku-nu NUMUN.MEŠ-[k]u-nu ina dGIŠ.BAR liq-mu§ 63 526T vii 17 KIMIN DINGIR.MEŠ ma-la ina tup-⌈pi⌉ a-⌈de-e⌉ an-ni-e526–527T vii 18 [M]U-šú-nu ⌈zak-ru am-mar SIG4 kaq-qu⌉-ru527–528T vii 19 ⌈lu-si-qu-ni-ku-nu⌉ kaq-qar-ku-nu k[i-i A]N.⌈BAR⌉528–529T vii 20 le-pu-šu me-me-⌈ni ina ŠÀ-bi⌉ lu ⌈la i⌉-par-ru-ʾa§ 64530T vii 21 ki-i šá ⌈TA ŠÀ⌉ A[N-e] šá zABAR [Š]ÈG530–531T vii 22 la i-za-nun-a-ni ki-i h a-an-ni-e531–532T vii 23 [Š]ÈG na-al-šu ina A.ŠÀ.[M]EŠ-ku-nu ta-me-ra-te-[ku-n]u532T vii 24 lu la il-lak ku-um ŠÈG533T vii 25 [p]e-ʾe-na-a-ti [i]na KUR-ku-nu li-iz-nu-na§ 65534–535T vii 26 [k]i-i šá AN.NA [ina IGI I]zI la i-za-zu-u-⌈ni⌉ at-⌈tu⌉-nu535T vii 27 [ina] IGI lúKÚR-ku-nu l[a ta]-za-a-za DUMU.MEŠ-ku-⌈nu⌉536T vii 28 [DU]MU.MUNUS.MEŠ-ku-<nu> ina ŠUII-k[u-nu] la ta-sab-ba-ta§ 66537–538T vii 29 [k]i-i šá NUMUN šá ANŠE.ku-di[n-ni] la-áš-šu-u-ni MU-ku-nu538T vii 30 [NU]MUN-ku-nu NUMUN šá ŠEŠ.[M]EŠ-ku-nu DUMU.MEŠ-ku-nu539T vii 31 [DUM]U.⌈MUNUS⌉.MEŠ-ku-nu TA [K]UR li-ih -li-iq§ 67540T vii 32 ⌈ki-i šá SI⌉ [šá(-)x x]-ni NUMUN u sík-kit KAŠ541T vii 33 ina ŠÀ-bi [šak-nu]-ni ⌈ki⌉-i šá NUMUN.MEŠ-ni an-nu-te541–542T vii 34 [l]a ⌈i⌉-p[ar-ru-u]ʾ-u-ni-⌈ni⌉ ù sik-kit KAŠ
106 JACOB LAUINGER
542T vii 35 [a]-⌈na? x x⌉-ni-šá la ⌈ta⌉-sa-h ar-u-ni543T vii 36 [M]U-ku-nu NUMUN-ku-nu NUMUN šá ŠEŠ.MEŠ-ku-nu DUMU.MEŠ-ku-nu 544T vii 37 [in]a UGU pa-ni šá kaq-qi-ri li-ih -li-iq§ 68545T vii 38 ⌈d⌉UTU ina gišAPIN šá AN.BAR ⌈URU⌉-ku-nu KUR-ku-nu545–546T vii 39 [n]a-gi-ku-nu lu-šá-bal-kit§ 69547T vii 40 KIMIN.KIMIN ki-i šá U8 an-[n]i-ti547–548T vii 41 [ša]l-qa-at-u-ni UzU šá DUMU-šá ina KA-šá548–549T vii 42 [š]á-kín-u-ni ki-i h a-an-ni-i [U]zU.MEŠ549–550T vii 43 [š]á DUMU.MEŠ-ku-nu DUMU.MUNUS.MEŠ-ku-<nu> ina bu-r[i]-ku-nu li?-<šá>-kil?-ku-⌈nu⌉§ 70551T vii 44 ki-i šá kab-su kab-su-tú UDU.NIM ⌈MUNUS⌉.NIM-tú551–552T vii 45 [š]al-qu-u-ni ir-ri-šú-nu TA GìRII-⌈šú⌉-nu552–553T vii 46 [k]ar-ku-u-ni ir-ri šá DUMU.MEŠ-k[u]-nu553–554T vii 47 [DU]MU.MUNUS.MEŠ-ku-<nu> TA GìRII.MEŠ-ku-nu ⌈li⌉-kar-ka§ 71555T vii 48 [ki-i] ⌈šá⌉ MUŠ ⌈d⌉NIN.KILIM ina ŠÀ [1]-et h u-re-te556T vii 49 [l]a e-rab-u-[n]i la i-rab-[b]i-su-u-ni557T vii 50 [ina] UGU <na-kas> zI.MEŠ ⌈šá⌉ a-h i-iš id-d[a]-bu-ub-u-ni558T vii 51 [a]t-tu-nu MUNUS.MEŠ-[k]u-nu ina ŠÀ 1-en É la te-ra-ba559T vii 52 [i]na UGU 1-et giš⌈NÁ⌉ la ta-⌈tal⌉-la ina UGU na-kas559T vii 53 [z]I.MEŠ šá a-⌈h e⌉-iš du-[u]b-ba§ 72560–561T vii 54 ki-i šá NINDA.MEŠ ⌈GEŠTIN⌉ ina <ŠÀ> ir-ri-ku-nu e-ra[b]-⌈u⌉-ni ta-mì-tú561–562
ESARHADDON’S SUCCESSION TREATY AT TELL TAYINAT 107
T vii 55 ⌈an-ni-tú ina ŠÀ ir-ri⌉-ku-nu ir-ri šá DUMU.MEŠ-ku-⌈nu⌉ DU[MU.MUNUS].⌈MEŠ⌉-ku-nu lu-še-ri-⌈bu⌉
§ 73563–564T vii 56 ki-i šá ⌈A.MEŠ⌉ ina ⌈ŠÀ⌉ tak-ku-si ta-nap!-pa-h a-a-ni a-na ⌈ka-šú⌉-[nu]564–565T vii 57 [MUNUS].⌈MEŠ-ku-nu DUMU.MEŠ⌉-ku-nu DUMU.MUNUS.MEŠ-ku-nu li-pu-h u-ku-nu565–566T vii 58 ⌈ÍD.MEŠ-ku-nu IGIII⌉.[MEŠ]-ku-nu A.MEŠ-ši-na a-na qí-niš ⌈lu⌉-sa-h i-ra§ 74 567T vii 59 [N]INDA.MEŠ ina pi-⌈it⌉-ti KÙ.GI ina KUR-ku-nu ⌈lil⌉-qú§ 75568T vii 60 KIMIN.KIMIN ⌈ki-i⌉ šá LÀ[L] ma-ti-qu-u-ni ÚŠ.MEŠ šá ⌈MUNUS⌉.MEŠ-ku-nu569T vii 61 DUMU.MEŠ-ku-nu DUMU.M[UNUS].MEŠ-ku-nu ina pi-i-ku-nu li-im-ti-iq§ 76570T vii 62 ki-i šá šá-as-b[u]-ti tul-tú ta-kul-u-ni571T vii 63 ina bal-tu-ti-ku-n[u] UzU.MEŠ-ku-nu UzU.MEŠ šá M[UNUS].MEŠ-ku-nu572T vii 64 ⌈DUMU⌉.MEŠ-ku-nu DUMU.M[UNUS.M]EŠ-ku-nu tu-es-su lu ⌈ta⌉-kul§77573–574T vii 65 gišPA[N]-ku-nu liš-b[i-r]u ina KI.TA lúKÚR-ku-nu lu-še-ši-[bu]-ku-nu574–575T vii 66 gisPAN ina ŠUII-ku-nu lu-⌈šá⌉-bal-ki-tú gišGIGIR.MEŠ-ku-nu a-na qí-niš l[u]-⌈šá-di-lu⌉§ 78576–577T vii 67 ki-i šá a-a-lu kaš-šu-[d]u-u-ni de-⌈ku⌉-u-ni a-na ka-a-šú-nu577–578T vii 68 ŠEŠ.MEŠ-ku-nu ⌈DUMU⌉.MEŠ-ku-⌈nu⌉ lu-kaš-ši-du li-du-ku-ku-nu§ 79579–580T vii 69 ki-i šá bur-⌈di⌉ šá-h i la [t]a-da-gal-u-ni ina bé-eš-ka-ni-šá580–581T vii 70 la ta-sa-h ar-⌈u-ni⌉ [a]t-tu-⌈nu⌉ <ina UGU> MUNUS.MEŠ-ku-nu DUMU.MEŠ-ku-nu581T vii 71 a-na ⌈É⌉.[MEŠ-k]u-nu la ta-sa-h u-ra§ 80582T vii 72 ⌈KIMIN⌉.KIMIN ki-i šá MUŠEN ina ⌈du-ba⌉-qi582–583T vii 73 i-sa-pak-u-ni a-na ka-šú-nu ŠEŠ.MEŠ-ku-nu583–584
108 JACOB LAUINGER
T vii 74 DUMU.MEŠ-ku-nu ina ŠUII lúKÚR-ku-nu liš-ka-nu-ku-nu§ 81585–586T vii 75 UzU.MEŠ-ku-nu UzU.MEŠ šá [ŠEŠ?].MEŠ-ku-nu MUNUS.MEŠ-ku-nu DUMU.MEŠ-ku-nu586–587T vii 76 ki qi-i-ri ku-u[p]-ri!(text: h u) nap-ti lu-sal-li-mu§ 82588–589T vii 77 ki-i šá h a-⌈e-pa-ru⌉-u[š]-h i ú-ma-mu ina kip-pi i-sa-pa-ku-u-ni589–590T vii 78 at-tu-nu ŠEŠ.MEŠ-ku-nu D[UM]U.MEŠ-ku-nu ina ŠUII lúKÚR-ku-nu na-sa-bi-ta§ 83591–592T vii 79 UzU.MEŠ-ku-nu UzU.MEŠ šá ŠEŠ.MEŠ-ku-nu DUMU.MEŠ-ku-nu592–593T vii 80 DUMU.MUNUS.MEŠ-ku-nu ki-i Uz[U] šá h ur-ba-bil-li lig-mu-ru§ 84594–595T vii 81 ki-i šá ina ⌈ŠÀ⌉ [k]a-ma-⌈ni⌉ [šá] LÀL H ABRUD.MEŠ pa-lu-za-a-[n]i596–597T vii 82 ki-i h a-an-ni-e UzU.[M]EŠ-ku-nu UzU.MEŠ šá ŠEŠ.MEŠ-k[u]-nu597–598T vii 83 DUMU.MEŠ-ku-nu DUMU.⌈MUNUS.MEŠ⌉-ku-n[u] ⌈ina⌉ bal-tu-ti-ku-nu ⌈HABRUD⌉.MEŠ lu
pa-⌈lu-za⌉§ 85 599T vii 84 ki-[i šá] ⌈BURU5.MEŠ⌉ NUMUN bar!(text: me)-mu kal-ma-tú mu-nu(599)–600T vii 85 [(a-ki-lu) URU.MEŠ]-ku-nu KUR-ku-nu A.ŠÀ.MEŠ-ku-nu lu-⌈šá⌉-ki-lu§ 86601T vii 86 ki-i zu-um-bi ina ŠUII lúKÚR-ku-nu le-pa-šu-ku-nu602T vii 87 [l]úKÚR-ku-nu li-im-ri-is-ku-nu§ 87603T vii 88 [ki-i šá] ⌈pi⌉-is-pi-su an-ni-⌈ú⌉603–604T vii 89 [bé]-ʾi-šu-u-ni ⌈ki⌉-i h a-an-ni-e604T vii 90 ⌈ina⌉ IGI DINGIR.MEŠ ⌈u⌉ [LUGAL] u a-me-lu-te605T vii 91 ⌈ni-piš-ku-nu⌉ [lib]-⌈ʾi-i⌉-šu§ 88 606T viii 1 [a]-n[a ka-na-šú-nu MUNUS.MEŠ-ku-nu ŠEŠ.MEŠ-ku-nu]606–607
ESARHADDON’S SUCCESSION TREATY AT TELL TAYINAT 109
T viii 2 DUMU.MEŠ-ku-nu ina pi-til-[ti li-ih -na-qu-ku-nu]§ 89608T viii 3 ki-i šá sa-lam šá DU[H.LÀL ina IzI iš-šar-rap-u-ni]609T viii 4 [š]á IM ina A.MEŠ im-ma-h a-⌈ah -h u-u-ni⌉610T viii 5 [ki]-i h a-an-ni-e la-an-ku-nu ina dGIŠ.BAR liq-⌈mu⌉-[u]611T viii 6 [ina] A.MEŠ li-ta-bu-[u]§ 90612–613T viii 7 [k]i-i šá gišGIGIR a-⌈di⌉ sa-se-šá ina ÚŠ.MEŠ ⌈ra⌉-[ah -sa-tu-u-ni]613–614T viii 8 [k]i-i h a-an-ni-e gišGIGIR.MEŠ-ku-[nu]614–615T viii 9 [in]a MÚRU lúKÚR-ku-<nu> ina ÚŠ.MEŠ šá ra-ma-ni-ku-⌈nu li⌉-[ra-ah -sa]§ 91616T viii 10 ki-i pi-laq-qi lu-šá-as-bir-ku-n[u]617T viii 11 [k]i-i MUNUS ina IGI lúKÚR-ku-nu le-pa-šú-k[u-nu]§ 92618T viii 12 [K]IMIN.KIMIN a-na ka-a-šú-nu ŠEŠ.MEŠ-ku-⌈nu⌉618–619T viii 13 DUMU.MEŠ-ku-nu ki-i al-lu-t[i]619–620T viii 14 [a]-na qí-in-niš lu-šá-di-lu-ku-⌈nu⌉§ 93621T viii 15 ki-i IzI la DÙG.GA-tú la SIG5-tú lu-šal-bu-ku-[nu]§ 94622T viii 16 ki-i šá ì.MEŠ ina ŠÀ-bi UzU.MEŠ e-rab-u-ni623T viii 17 [t]a-mì-tú an-ni-tú ina ŠÀ!-bi UzU.MEŠ-ku-nu624–625T viii 18 [Uz]U.MEŠ šá DUMU.MEŠ-ku-nu lu-še-ri-bu§ 95626T viii 19 ki-i šá a-⌈ra⌉-ru a-na dEN ih -tu-u-ni627T viii 20 [k]ap-pi šá Á.MEŠ-šú-nu GìRII.MEŠ-šú-nu627–628T viii 21 ⌈ú⌉-bá-ti-qu-u-ni IGI.MEŠ-šú-nu628–629
110 JACOB LAUINGER
T viii 22 ⌈ú⌉-ga-lil-u-ni ki-i h a-an-ni-e629–630T viii 23 [l]ig-ma-ru-ku-nu ki-i ⌈GI⌉.AMBAR.MEŠ ina A.MEŠ630–631T viii 24 [l]u-ni-šú-u-ku-nu ki-i GI.MEŠ ina rik-si631T viii 25 [l]úKÚR-ku-nu li-šá-lip-ku-nu§ 96632T viii 26 [šu]m-⌈ma⌉ at-tu-nu maš-šur-PAP-AŠ MAN KUR aš-šur633T viii 27 ⌈ù⌉ maš-šur-DÙ-A DUMU MAN GAL-u ⌈šá É⌉ UŠ-te633B–CT viii 28 ⌈ù⌉ re-eh -ti DUMU.MEŠ si-it ŠÀ-bi633C–634T viii 29 ⌈šá⌉ maš-šur-PAP-AŠ ⌈MAN KUR aš-šur tu-ram⌉-ma-a-ni634–635T viii 30 a-na zAG ⌈GÙB⌉ tal-lak-a-ni šá a-na zAG635T viii 31 il-lak-u-ni GÍR.MEŠ le-ku-la-šu636T viii 32 [š]á a-na GÙB il-lak-u-ni GÍR.MEŠ-me le-ku-l[a-šu]§ 96A636A–BT viii 33 ⌈a⌉-na ka-a-šú-nu DUMU.MEŠ-ku-nu DUMU.MUNUS.MEŠ-ku-nu636CT viii 34 [k]i-i UDU.NIM ga-⌈de⌉-e li-qi-lu-ku-nu§ 97637T viii 35 ki-i šá ki-il-lu šá su-ʾe-e an-⌈nu⌉-[te]637–638T viii 36 ⌈i⌉-h al-la-lu-u-ni at-tu-⌈nu MUNUS.MEŠ⌉-ku-nu638–639T viii 37 [D]UMU.MEŠ-ku-nu DUMU.MUNUS.MEŠ-ku-nu la ta-nu-h a639–640T viii 38 [l]a ta-sa-la-la es-mat-⌈e⌉-ku-nu640T viii 39 ⌈a⌉-na a-h e-iš lu la i-qar-ri-ba§ 98641T viii 40 ki-i šá lib-bu šá h up-<pi> ra-⌈qu⌉-u-ni642T viii 41 ki h a-an-ni-e lib-ba-ku-nu li-ri-iq§ 99643T viii 42 KIMIN.KIMIN ki-i lúKÚR-ku-nu ú-pa-tah -u-⌈ka⌉-[nu-ni]644
ESARHADDON’S SUCCESSION TREATY AT TELL TAYINAT 111
T viii 43 [L]ÀL ì.MEŠ zi-iʾ-za-ru-ʾu ÚŠ.MEŠ gišERIN645T viii 44 a-na šá-kan ⌈pi-it⌉-h i-ku-nu li-ih -liq-qi§ 100646–647T viii 45 ki-i šá mar-tú mar-rat-u-ni ⌈at-tu-nu⌉647T viii 46 [MUNUS].MEŠ-ku-nu DUMU.MEŠ-ku-nu DUMU.MUNUS.MEŠ-ku-nu648T viii 47 [ina] UGU a-h e-iš lu mar-ra-ku-nu§ 101649T viii 48 ⌈d⌉UTU h u-h a-⌈ru⌉ šá zABAR ina UGU-h i-ku-nu649–650T viii 49 [DU]MU.MEŠ-ku-nu li-is-h u-up ina giš-par-ri650–651T viii 50 [l]a na-par-šu-di li-di-ku-nu a-a ú-še-si651T viii 51 [n]ap-šat-ku-un§ 102652T viii 52 ki-i šá na-a-du an-ni-tú šal-qa-tu-u-ni652–653T viii 53 A.MEŠ-šá sa-pa-h u-u-ni ina kaq-qar su-ma-mì-ti lap-⌈lap⌉-[tu]654–655T viii 54 na-da-ku-nu lu ta-h i-bi ina su-um me-e m[u-u-ta]§ 103656T viii 55 KI.MIN KI.MIN ki-i šá kuš⌈E⌉.SIR an-ni-tú bat-qa-tu-u-n[i]657T viii 56 ina kaq-qar pu-qut-ti ga-zi-ri kušE.SIR-ku-nu658T viii 57 lib-tu!-qu ina UGU ŠÀ-bi-ku-nu piš-la§ 104659T viii 58 dEN.LÍL EN gišG[U].zA-e gišG[U].zA-ku-nu lu-šá-bal-kit§ 105660–661T viii 59 ⌈dAG⌉ na-ši tup-pi NAM.MEŠ DINGIR.MEŠ MU-ku-nu661T viii 60 lip-šit NUMUN-ku-nu ina KUR li-h al-líq§ 106662T viii 61 gišIG ina IGI-e-ku-nu lu-šar-h i-su663T viii 62 gišIG.MEŠ-e-ku-nu lu la i-pat-ti-a§ 107: Colophon
112 JACOB LAUINGER
664T viii 63 itiGU4.SI.SÁ UD.⌈16⌉[+x]?.KÁM665T viii 64 lim-mu mdAG-EN-PAP665T viii 65 lúGAR KUR uruBÁD-LUGAL-uk-ka666T viii 66 ⌈a-de-e⌉ ina UGU maš-šur-DÙ-IBILA667T viii 67 DUMU LUGAL GAL-u šá É ri-du-ti667–668T viii 68 ša KUR aš-šur ⌈ù⌉ mdGIŠ.NU11-MU-GI.NA669T viii 69 DUMU LUGAL ša É ri-du-ti669T viii 70 ša KÁ.DINGIR.RAki
670T viii 71 [š]a-ak-nu
Translation
§ 1 “The adê of Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, son of Sennacherib, king of Assyria, with the governor of Kunalia, with the deputy, the majordomo, the scribes, the chariot drivers, the third men, the village managers, the information officers, the prefects, the cohort commanders, the charioteers, the cavalrymen, the exempt, the outriders, the spe-cialists, the shi[eld bearers (?)], the craftsmen, (and) with [all] the men [of his hands], great and small, as many as there are—[wi]th them and with the men who are born after the adê in the [f]uture, from the east […] to the west, all those over whom Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, exercises kingship and lordship, concerning Assurbanipal, the great crown prince designate, the son of Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, on whose behalf he established the adê with you.”
§ 30 “You will not look at Assurbanipal, the great crown prince designate, or his brothers without reverence or sub-mission. If someone does not protect him, you will fight them as if fighting for yourselves. You will bring frightful terror into their hearts, saying: ‘Your (pl.) father wrote (this) in the adê, he established it, and he has made us swear (it).”
§ 35“Whoever changes, neglects, violates, or voids the oath of this tablet (and) transgresses against the father, the lord, (and) the adê of the great gods(?) (and) breaks their entire oath, or whoever discards this adê-tablet, a tablet of Aššur, king of the gods, and the great gods, my lords, or whoever removes the statue of Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, the statue of Assurbanipal, the great crown prince designate, or the statue(s) of his brothers (and) his sons which are over him—you will guard like your god this sealed tablet of the great ruler on which is written the adê of Assurbanipal, the great crown prince designate, the son of Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, your lord, which is sealed with the seal of Aššur, king of the gods, and which is set up before you.”
ESARHADDON’S SUCCESSION TREATY AT TELL TAYINAT 113
§ 54“May Aramiš, lord of the city and land of Qarnê (and) lord of the city and land of Azaʾi, fill you with green water.”
§ 54 A“May Adad (and) Šāla of Kurbaʾil create piercing pain and ill health everywhere in your land.”
§ 54 B“May Šarrat-Ekron make a worm fall from your insides.”
§ 67“Just as a shoot is […], (and) seed(s) and the sikkitu of beer are placed within, (and) just as these seeds do not sprout, and the sikkitu of beer does not turn to its …, may your name, your seed, (and) the seed of your brothers (and) your sons disappear from the face of the earth.”
§ 96A“May they strike down you, your sons, and your daughters like a spring lamb or kid.”
§ 106“May they cause the door to be soaked (in blood?) before your eyes. May your doors not open.”
Commentary
i 1–12: Ms T follows the general pattern of SAA 2 6 1–5 in a tripartite hierarchical presentation of the individuals who take the oath, with the preposition issi marking each level of the hierarchy. In the Nimrud manuscript, the hierarchy is as follows:
• A named bēl āli; • his unnamed sons and grandsons (although three of six manuscripts omit the TA before DUMU.MEŠ-šú); • the residents of his city and “all the men of his hands, as many as there are.”
In ms T, the hierarchy consists of:
• An unnamed bēl pāh iti; • sixteen additional unnamed officials or groups of officials, all connected to the civil or military provincial
administration; • and “all the men of his hands, great and small, as many as there are.”
In contrast to the Nimrud manuscripts, two features of ms T stand out: The anonymity of the bēl pāh iti and other officials, intended perhaps to ensure that the text of the adê remained applicable even as personnel changed; and the undoubtedly intentional omission of any mention of sons and grandsons, reflecting the non-hereditary nature of the governorship, cf. line i 13 below.
i 10: For the restoration lú⌈a⌉-[ri?-ti?], compare the list of personnel whom Esarhaddon adds to his army in his “Gottesbrief,” see RINAP 4 84 iii 16’–18’, and cf. also Borger Asb. 58 A vii 2.
i 11: I owe the reading lú⌈kit⌉-ki-tu-u to the suggestion of Karen Radner.i 13–19: The sequence of these lines follows the sequence of ms 27 against all other extant manuscripts. Ms T
also follows ms 27 against all other extant manuscripts in appending the qualification “concerning Assurbanipal, the great crown prince designate, the son of Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, on whose behalf he established the adê
114 JACOB LAUINGER
with you” (SAA 2 6 11–12) to the end of the section. This qualification represents the first mention of Assurbani-pal in the text, that is, the subject of the specific adê. Perhaps § 1 in the other extant manuscripts presents a basic template for the preamble of an adê to which the names of the contracting parties can simply be added (cf. SAA 2 5 1–3, SAA 2 8 1–8, and SAA 2 11 1–5, other adê’s whose opening text is preserved), while § 1 in manuscripts 27 and T presents that preamble adapted to the particular circumstances. Why the addition of a qualification at the end of the section should be accompanied by a different order of the lines prior is unclear to me.4
i 13: As in the previous lines, ms T omits any mention of “sons and grandsons,” as in the Nimrud manuscripts. The parallel line in the Nimrud manuscripts also marks the commencement of 2nd m. pl. forms to refer to the oath takers. In contrast, 3rd m. pl. forms continue here in ms T, with the 2nd m. pl. not appearing until line i 19.
i 15: There is space for a single sign in the damage before adi, although we expect simply issu napāh šamši adi erēb šamši, as in all Nimrud manuscripts that preserve the line (with some semantic variation of the second infi-nitive).
i 17: In contrast to the sole other ms preserving this line, 27, ms T omits ša before ina muh h i. Emendation is not necessary to preserve the sense of the passage.
i 23: There is space for approximately four signs in the damaged end of the line. However, in the Nimrud manuscripts, four DNs requiring eleven signs appear between Nabû (the last preserved DN of i 23) and Šerua (the first DN of i 24). It seems likely, therefore, that i 23 ends with Nusku (d[NUSKU]) and that Uraš, Nergal, and Mullissu are omitted in ms T, cf. ms 45 A, which omits a line (SAA 2 6 28, consisting of Nabû, Nusku, Uraš, and Nergal) in the parallel list of deities in § 3.
i 24: The situation is similar to the preceding line: There is space for approximately five signs in the damaged end of the line, yet restoring the text in parallel to the Nimrud manuscripts requires 17 signs. Given that i 25 begins with the genitive nouns šamê kaqqiri, perhaps one should restore [MEŠ a-ši-bu-ti] at the end of i 24 and under-stand d15 šá uruNINAki d15 šá arba-ìl to have been omitted? Depending on the method of the text’s transmission, however, it is equally possible to restore d[15 šá uruNINAki ] and understand d15 šá arba-ìl DINGIR.MEŠ a-ši-bu-ti to have been omitted.
i 28: Ms T confirms the sequence of verbs udanninuni is batu iškununi as read in Wiseman 1958 and SAA 2 6 against the various attempts to achieve the phrase well-attested elsewhere in the text udanninuni issikunu iškununi, for example, the suggested emendation in ms 45 A of is -si-bat-tu to is-si-ku-nu (Frankena 1965: 126 n. 2, followed by Reiner 1969: 534 with n. 3); or the deletion of -si-bat-tu and subsequent emendation of iš- to -si- (Watanabe 1987: 59 and 178, after collation).5 Syntactically, the verb sabātu, like dunnunu and šakānu, is part of a relative clause that goes back to the ša in line i 1, the antecedent of which is the preceding adê, cf. Parpola and Watanabe 1987: xxxvi, “This latter meaning [“treaty which”] occurs in the second paragraph of no. 6 (divine witnesses), where the words adê ša have been omitted as unnecessary but are implied by the subjunctive predicates concluding the paragraph.” For other examples of adê as the direct object of sabātu in the G and Š-stems, see Watanabe 1987: 14–15.
i 30–31: It is difficult to see how the four DNs preserved in the Nimrud manuscripts could fit in the damaged area at the end of i 30 and the beginning of i 31, and so one or more may have been omitted, cf. lines i 23–24 above.
i 34–36: These lines are very poorly preserved, but it is apparent from the position of Libbi-āli that the sequence of Assyrian cities in ms T differs in some degree from that preserved in the Nimrud manuscripts. But see SAA 2 6 37–40B, in which the presence and arrangement of lines in the extant Nimrud manuscripts also shows conside-rable variation.
4. Cf. the opinion of Frankena (1965: 126): “In l. 12 [of ms 27] he writes automatically after the name of Ashurbanipal a stock phrase we find often after the name of the crown-prince. It is interesting to see that all the duplicates avoid the anakalouth by placing ll. 6–7 after 10a and by omitting the lines 10b–12.”
5. See also the suggestion of Borger (1961: 175) to read is -si-bat-tu as gišsí-mit-tu, “Abmachung, Bestimmung.” The form is -si-bat-tu in SAA 2 6 24 is cited by Luukko (2004: 104) an example of an anaptyctic vowel before the stress.
ESARHADDON’S SUCCESSION TREATY AT TELL TAYINAT 115
i 44'–45': The length of the section implies that these lines be identified with SAA 2 6 40A and B, which appear in only two of the four Nimrud manuscripts preserving the end of the section.
i 47': While only the leftmost signs are preserved for each line in the beginning of this section, the text can still be confidently restored for in the preceding three lines. However, the sign combination ša + a single horizontal wedge, which should be the Personenkeil as it is followed by space before the break, does not appear in the corres-ponding text as known from the Nimrud manuscripts.
i 50'–51': If the signs are read correctly, and they are poorly preserved, then some text present in the Nimrud manuscripts must have been omitted ms T, or else i 50' would comprise 33 signs.
i 66': The spacing of the line suggests that šá KUR aš-šur, present in four of the five Nimrud manuscripts, was present in ms T as well.
i 80': Only traces of the sign(s) following the first lā are preserved, and it is unclear whether the traces fit better DÙG.GA or SIG5 (each of which occurs in the parallel line in a ms from Nimrud).
ii 3: Ms 36 has lu-u UN.MEŠ-šú in place of ŠEŠ.MEŠ AD.MEŠ-šú qin-ni-šu found in the two other Nimrud manuscripts, 27 and 49 I (SAA 2 6 76–77). Such a restoration is also possible in ms T and may fit the line’s spacing better.
iii 1–12: Column iii is very poorly preserved, with twelve almost entirely illegible lines divided into two sections of five and seven lines by two rulings. Assurbanipal’s name is preserved in the line immediately before the first ruling, which allows for a tentative identification of the section. The name is similarly situated before the end of a section in SAA 2 6 178–179 and the following section, § 16, is approximately the same number of lines as the second “section” in column iii of ms T. However, the identification of ms T iii 1–5 with § 15 must remain tentative. First, the identification requires column ii to consist of approximately 100 lines (barring the omission of lines), whereas column i, preserved in full, consists of only 80 lines and even the columns on the reverse—uninterrupted by a seal impression—consist of 90 to 100 lines.6 Second, strictly speaking, the second ruling does not demarcate a section but rather the top of the seal impression, and the seal impression is not necessarily coterminous with a section break in the Nimrud manuscripts (e.g., ms 27, in which the seal impression in column iii occurs in the middle of § 14).
iv 5: This line presents the only occurrence in ms T of a plene spelling of the 3rd m. s. accusative suffix with -ú- and not -u-, perhaps under the influence of the writing šam-mu, which occurs almost directly above it on the tablet.
v 1: The sign šam! lacks the final two horizontal wedges.v 8: The writing of the verb, which was previously extant in only one ms from Nimrud, x 15+, is confirmed as
present tense by ms T, and so the writing in x 15+ cannot be a mistake for the perfect as suggested by Watanabe (1987: 160). Should the form be understood as an aspectual use of the present? Cf. Parpola 1974: 275 note to line 16.
v 10–11: The phrase lā palh uš lā kanšuš is only partially preserved in the Nimrud manuscripts. It is a variant of the common adverbial pair palh iš kanšiš, for example, palh iš kanšiš tāmartašu kabittu uštanebbala, “He continually brings to me his substantial audience gift reverently and submissively” (Borger Asb. 71–72 A x 49–50).
v 11: The phrase massartušu lā inassuru is only partially preserved in one Nimrud ms. 27. The reading ma-sar-t[u] in that ms goes back to Borger (1961: 185) who transliterated ma-sar-[tu(?)]. Watanabe (1987: 105) and Parpola and Watanabe (1988: 43) transliterate the the traces preserved before the break as -t[u]. In addition to the
6. However, column iv starts at line 257, so that columns ii and iii should have contained a total of 183 lines or an average of 91.5 lines. The Nimrud manuscripts show a wide divergence in line counts per column. For example, with respect to column iii, ms 27 begins at line 155, ms 39 at line 163, and ms 46 E at line 171 (or at least, column ii ends at line 170). Ms 45 D may begin column iii as early as line 129 (as preserved, the column’s text begins at line 141, but this line is below the seal impression and there are typically about twelve lines before the seal impres-sion). Cf. Parpola and Watanabe 1988: xlviii: “the average number of lines per column is only 80 on the obverse of A [= ms 27] and 85 on that of B [= ms 35+]. The many dividing lines reduce the average number of lines per column to about 90 on the reverse of A; data for B and C [= ms 29] are not available.”
116 JACOB LAUINGER
case vowel, this sign can also be the auxiliary vowel a > u before a no-longer-preserved 3rd m. s. pronominal suffix, that is, ma-sar-t[u-šu]. For a discussion of instances in SAA 2 6 where a single šumma serves a double function, introducing both a conditional clause and also a following “solemn statement,” see Watanabe 1987: 30 (although the designation “solemn statement” follows the interpretation of Parpola and Watanabe [1988: xl]). On the irregu-lar use of the subjunctive after šumma in the adê, see Parpola 1987: 173. The pronoun attunu at the end of the line emphasizes the transition from a 3 m. s. subject back to a 2 m. pl. subject.
v 12: The infinitive sâli is not preserved in the Nimrud manuscripts.v 13: Following the suggestion of Karen Radner (personal communication), NÍG.BA.MEŠ-te is understood
as a pseudo-logogram for namurrate, derived from the occasional use of NÍG.BA as a logogram for nāmurtu, “audience-gift.”
v 15: The verb issat ar is partially preserved in ms x 15+ (is-sa-t[ar]) but has been restored by Parpola and Watanabe (1988: 43) as is-sa-k[an?] in parallel with ms 45c, and so the verb is absent from their composite edition.
v 16–23: This section, designated here § 30a, duplicates lines v 9–15 with different line breaks and some variant orthography (e.g., LUGAL in place of MAN and UŠ-ti in place of UŠ-te in v 17 ). A preliminary comparison of the forms of the signs (e.g., ŠEŠ) indicates that these two sections may have been written by different hands, but the matter requires further study.
v 37: The trace of the sign going into the break could be equally BU or ŠE and provides no help in deciding whether to read sar-bu (Wiseman 1958: 57; Borger 1961: 185; AHw 1029a; BaM Beiheft 3 108, see Watanabe 1987: 187–88; and SAA 2 6 373, see Parpola and Watanabe 1988: 43–44 n. to lines 373–376) or šar-še-rum (Reiner 1969: 537 with n. 13; CAD S s.v. sīqu; CAD Š/2 s.v. šaršerru usage b; and CAD Š/3 s.v. šupuh ru usage b). Other extant manuscripts omit attunu at the beginning of the line.
v 40: -ri has one vertical before the Winkelhaken and two after.v 42: The reading ⌈me⌉-me-né in ms T allows us to discard the restoration [ina I]GI-ni in the only other extant
ms, x 14, as in BagM Beiheft 3 and SAA 2 6. Note that the copy of ms x 14 in Wiseman 1958: plate 37 shows no damage to the signs ina IGI-ni, but the ms was collated by Watanabe.
v 55: The adjective modifying murs u, which is well preserved among the Nimrud manuscripts only in ms 37 (with traces remaining in ms 27), has presented a challenge to the text’s different editors. Wiseman copied and read la is-ba-tu but offered no translation (Wiseman 1958: 57), about which Borger (1961: 186) remarked “Die Lesung … dürfte sicher falsch sein; doch gelang es mir nicht, sie nach den Photos zu verbessern” (he did not translate the signs in Borger 1983: 169). Reiner (1969: 538 n. 16) suggested restoring [NÍG].GIG? at the beginning of the line, but it is unclear to me from her translation how she interpreted the signs that follow. Watanabe (1987: 189) read LA IS LA ⌈x⌉ after collation and emended the text to la pa!-at!-ru!. After collation, Parpola and Watanabe (1988: 44 n. to line 389) read la pa?-la?-⌈lu?⌉ in ms 37 and [pa-a]t-lu in ms 27 (the latter from the photo), and so the composite edition reads la pa-at-ru!. In ms T, the sign following GIG is clearly SIKIL for murs u lā ellu, “an unclean disease.” On the basis of the published photos, it seems possible to read ⌈SIKIL⌉ in ms 27 but less so in ms 37.
v 57: Ms T follows this line with a ruling, not present in the other manuscripts according to the plates in Wise-man 1958.
v 61–72: Ms T accords with Watanabe’s (1987: 190) observation that the section as preserved in the Nimrud manuscripts falls into two parts, the first distinguished by the Babylonian subjunctive and the second by the Assy-rian subjunctive.
v 62: The majority of the line is elsewhere only preserved in ms 37, where Parpola and Watanabe (1988: 44) read x šú a-de-e ⌈x x⌉/ [e?]-gu-ma. The signs as copied in Wiseman 1958: plate 38 can fit the text of ms T fairly easily. The meaning of the lines is less clear, as one can interpret the sequence of substantives AD EN a-de-e DINGIR.MEŠ GAL.MEŠ a variety of ways. I have opted for “the father, the lord, (and) the adê of the great gods.” Compare an almost parallel construction, Streck Asb. 160 33–34; see Borger Asb. 185, where the first two substantives, abu and bānûa, are actually not objects in the main clause but subjects in a subordinate clause absent in ms T: RN1 RN2 RN3 šarrāni ša qereb māt Musur iškunu abu bānûa / adê Aššur u ilāni rabûti ētiqū iprus ū māmīssun, “RN1, RN2, and
ESARHADDON’S SUCCESSION TREATY AT TELL TAYINAT 117
RN3, the kings whom (my) father, who engendered me, established in Egypt, transgressed against the adê of Aššur and the great gods and broke their oath.”
v 64: The demonstrative pronoun anni’e (gen. s.) agrees with neither tuppi (acc. s.) nor adê (pl.). The sole extant manuscript from Nimrud, 37, shows a similar lack of agreement: [tu]p-pi a-de-e an-ni-i (line 401). To my know-ledge, a similar lack of agreement between anni’u and a noun it modifies does not occur elsewhere in the Nimrud manuscripts (in ms. 37 l. 385, tamītu annītu agree, even if the nominative case is unexpected), but cf. the comment to v 68.
v 67: The sense of ina muh h išu in this context is unclear to me.v 68: The emendation <NUN> seems justified on two accounts. First, a word must be missing between NA4.
KIŠIB and GAL-e as the latter is explicitly marked as genitive with the phonetic complement -e yet NA4.KIŠIB is in the accusative case as the direct object of nasāru (v 72; I understand anni’e to modify kunuk despite the lack of agreement; cf. the comment to v 64). Second, the corresponding line in ms 27, the only other extant ms, reads NA4.KIŠIB NUN-⌈e⌉ […] (SAA 2 6 405), and cf. the description of the seals of Aššur with which the adê tablets are sealed in the caption as NA4.KIŠIB NUN-e GAL-e (SAA 2 6 iii–iv). However, I extend a Babylonian meaning, “sealed tablet,” to NA4.KIŠIB in line v 68. This meaning derives from the context of the passage, for the NA4.KIŠIB has the text of the adê written on it (ina libbi šatiruni, v 70), after which it is sealed (kanikuni, v 71) before being set up (šakinuni, v 72). All of these actions suggest that NA4.KIŠIB in the phrase NA4.KIŠIB <NUN> GAL-e should refer to the tablet itself while NA4.KIŠIB šá aš-šur LUGAL DINGIR.MEŠ (v 71) should refer to the divine seals with which the tablet was impressed (following Watanabe 1985: 388 in understanding NA₄.KIŠIB šá aš-šur in SAA 2 6 407 to refer collectively to all three seals, just as the caption mentions only NA₄.KIŠIB da-šur4, see also George 1986: 140). In this regard, the self-designation of the text as a “sealed tablet” is obviously quite significant, providing further support for George’s convincing argument that “the document ratified by Aššur’s sealing is, on the mythological plane, the Tablet of Destinies” (1986: 141).
v 72: The semantic range of nas āru in conjunction with the prepositional phrase makes this stipulation ambi-guous. The verb is well attested with adê as its direct object with the meaning “to keep an adê-oath,” e.g., adê annûte usrā “(You will speak to your sons and your grandsons, your seed and your seed’s seed … saying:) Keep this adê!”
(SAA 2 6 291–292) and see Watanabe 1987: 13–14 for additional references. But the object of the verb in v 72 is the sealed tablet and not the adê. Perhaps, then, the stipulation refers to safeguarding the physical tablet as one would safeguard the statue of one’s god. Or, more provocatively, the verb might convey the sense of obeying or heeding the (divine) sealed tablet’s stipulations as if they were divine commands, for example, compare aššu ša amat Aššur ili bāniya lā is suru, “because he did not obey the word of Aššūr, the god who created me (he trusted in his own power)” (Borger Asb. 31 A ii 112–113). A section ruling following this line, present in all three extant manuscripts from Nimrud, is absent from ms T.
v 78–79: Like ms 29, this section in ms T lacks an additional curse (present in ms 27, the only other ms with this section preserved).
v 79: HUL lacks its IGI-component.v 81: The sole other extant ms, 27, has the variant a-mat KA-šu “(May Mullissu … make evil) the utterance of
his (Aššur’s) mouth.”v 82: For the writing i-si-ba-ta with an anaptyctic vowel, cf. the writing is-si-bat-tu for is batu in SAA 2 6 24 (ms
45 A) and see the commentary to line i 28 above.vi 2: The appearance of the i-prefix transforms an expected D-preterite (as in the three extant Nimrud manus-
cripts) into a G-present and is unexpected in two ways: The verb kullumu is not attested in the G; and the vetitive is built on the preterite and not the present. Perhaps the form reflects a scribal slip between the literary vetitive and the more vernacular prohibitive, cf. vi 40?
vi 3: Only 35+ has no break between ai ukallimkunu and lih alliqa, and it lacks the mā of ms T. The presence of mā fixes the meaning of the curse, which must be translated “May Jupiter … not show you the entrance of Bēl into
118 JACOB LAUINGER
the Esagil, saying ‘May he (Bēl) destroy your life’.” Absent mā as in ms 35+, the subject of lih alliqa can be either Jupiter or Bēl.
vi 8: Evidently, ms T indicates a stressed auxiliary vowel in the writing NUMUN-a-ku-nu (or else a Babylonian acc. case vowel before the suffix reflecting the historical final aleph) while the four other extant manuscripts have simply NUMUN-ku-nu. Ms T presents the Babylonian form of the precative with final auxiliary vowel, which the three other extant manuscripts lack. The prefix is preserved for the verb in only one Nimrud ms, 39, where it is damaged and read by Borger (1961: 188), as ⌈lu⌉-, followed by Watanabe (1987: 113) and Parpola and Watanabe (1988: 46), but which should be collated (the ms is in Baghdad and so was not collated by Watanabe).
vi 11: For the emendation of la- to li!-, see line vi 15. Ms T confirms the restoration of the verb in the one extant Nimrud ms, 39, to liza[mmâ] in CAD I/J s.v. ikkillu usage d against the restoration li-za-a[m-mi/e] by Borger (1961: 188); Watanabe (1987: 114); Parpola and Watanabe (1988: 46); and CAD T s.v. tarītu A s. mng 1, although cf. HKL I, 610 s.v. AfO 8 (1932/33) IV 12, (correcting Borger 1961: 188, cited by Reiner 1969: 538 n. 21 misattri-buted to line 441). As to my knowledge the verb is unattested in the N-stem, the writing in ms T is probably best analyzed as a D-precative with consonantal gemination of the initial radical, cf. Parpola 1974: 274 note to line 11. The ending in -a supports understanding a transitive and not factitive use of the verb with tarêtkunu as its sub-ject, “may your nurses be deprived of the cries of little children in the streets and squares,” cf. v 15 and ikkil Adad lizammeʾūma, “may they (Matiʾ-ilu’s subjects) be deprived of Adad’s thunder” (SAA 2 2 r. iv 12).
vi 13: For the abnormal syllabification of šamūte, see Luukko 2004: 27–29. The form of UD written here and in vi 20 (with two superimposed vertical wedges) differs from the form elsewhere on the tablet and may provide another piece of evidence that the text of this tablet was written by at least two scribes, cf. the note to v 16–23.
vi 15: As in vi 11, the verb is written with the first radical explicitly doubled, and the ending in -a suggests the 3 f.pl. morpheme and so a transitive but not factitive use of the verb, that is, that tamerātikunu and not Adad is the verb’s subject so that we should translate “may your fields lack (grain).”
vi 22: The only other ms preserving “finger(s),” 50 A, has the singular ŠU.SI-ku-nu. One might expect the phonetic complement to the plural form ubānāte to be written as -te, but cf. the previous line where the phonetic complement to marʾātikunu is written similarly as -e, and cf. also line viii 62.
vi 23: The subject of lēkul is not preserved in any other extant ms. It seems unlikely that the word should be identified with the qaqānu-bird, known to me only from Hg., as qāqānu is equated there with the paʾû-bird, des-cribed as issur Tiāmat, that is, a sea bird, in the bird-call text KAR 125 obv. 19 (and cf. its Sumerian equivalence u₅-mun-mušen, which also points to its aquatic nature, see Veldhuis 2004: 297). Perhaps it is better to normalize qāqānu, understanding a variant of qūqānu, for Uruanna equates the qūqāni qaqqari with the išqippu worm and the qūqāni eqli with the devouring insect known as mubattir eqli.
vi 31: TA is cramped but recognizable. Still, the sign must be in error given that it follows an infinitive in construct. The two other manuscripts preserving this phrase have na-aq A.MEŠ, “the pouring of libations.”
vi 34: 46 M, the only other ms preserving the end of the line in full, lacks lu. vi 40: ai išakkan is grammatically unexpected form, see the comment to vi 2. The form may be preserved in the
other extant manuscripts. Ms 27 has only […]-kan preserved, so one cannot tell if the text had the expected pro-hibitive. Ms 35+ preserves only the head of a vertical before i-šá-kan. Watanabe (1987: 116), followed by Parpola and Watanabe (1988: 48) restores [lu l]a! for the expected prohibitive, but the traces equally support the restoration [a]-⌈a⌉, in parallel to ms T. The last extant ms, X 17, preserves only ⌈a⌉ at the beginning of the line. Watanabe (1987: 116) restores the grammatically expected form ⌈a⌉-[a iš-kun?], but again a restoration paralleling ms T, ⌈a⌉-[a i-šá-kan] is equally possible.
vi 42: Note the form zuʾrikunu where other extant manuscripts have zumru or write the word logographically. The sign read as -r[i!?] starts with two horizontals followed by a vertical before the break. The verb is a precative of šubšû and not šakānu as in another extant ms, X 17. That ms. preserves only liš-k[un], but the use of the sign liš- would seem to preclude a precative of šubšû, no matter how little of –k[un] is preserved (only a single horizontal wedge). In a second ms, 48 U, the verb clearly begins with l[i]-, but of course either verb can be restored. Both
ESARHADDON’S SUCCESSION TREATY AT TELL TAYINAT 119
verbs are attested elsewhere with this traditional curse, which also appears in Esarhaddon’s treaty with Baʾal of Tyre (SAA 2 5 r. iv 3'–4') although the verb is no longer preserved in that text.
vi 44: Ms T omits § 53 (SAA 2 6 464–465). The god Aramiš (or Aramis), is known primarily from a few personal names (PNEA s.v. Aramiš). Scattered attestations in Neo-Assyrian sources of names such as Aramiš-et[el]-il[āni] (RA 65 85 6) and especially Aramiš-šar-ilāni (SAA 16 105 obv. 11) suggest that Aramiš was the head of a local pantheon (Aynard and Nougayrol 1971: 87 n. 1). The fact that persons bearing these and other theophoric names mentioning Aramiš are associated with northern Syria led Aynard and Nougayrol (1971: 87) to suggest that “les rares noms propres en Aramis-, encore que bien assyriens dans leur structure, puissant être originaires de cette region.” The designation of Aramiš in ms T as “lord of the city and land of Qarnê (and) lord of the city and land of Azaʾi” supports a location farther to the south, as Qarnê/Qarnīna is the name of the Assyrian province to the south of Damascus (Radner 2006b: 61–62), whose eponymous capital should be identified with Šēh Saʿd (biblical Qarnaim and classical Carneas), see Lipiński 2000: 353 and 365–366. For a suggested identification of Azaʾi with Rasm et-Tanjara in the Ghab Plain, see Athanassiou 1977: 327 n. 7.
vi 45–46: I am grateful to Karen Radner for her assistance in reading these lines. The section is not known from the Nimrud manuscripts. The transition from § 54 to § 55 is not preserved on any extant Nimrud manuscripts, and Watanabe (1987: 116 and plates 12–13) published a fragment, ms 85 (mislabeled as ms 88 in plate 13), that belongs in between the two sections (her § 54 A, renamed § 54 C here), noting that “Das neue Fragment 85 läßt erkennen, daß der VTE-Text zwischen 54–55 mindestens noch einen weiteren Paragraphen enthielt” (p. 196, see already Borger 1961: 190). Ms T demonstrates that two more sections, designated here as § 54 A and § 54 B are not preserved in the Nimrud manuscripts. For Adad and Šāla of Kurbaʾil, see Schwemer 2001: 595–600 and cf. SAA 2 2 r. vi 17. The verb is singular despite having two subjects, cf. vi 51 and perhaps also vi 48–49.
vi 47: The -am- and the -qár- are cramped, as if the scribe was anticipating having to fit many signs into the line. This writing of the toponym Ekron is otherwise unattested in cuneiform to my knowledge. In particular, the other writings use QAR or QA, not KAR (= qár). A plene writing of the initial vowel is also unattested, but cf. uruʾa-am-qa-[ar?]-ru-na (Fuchs, Sargon 277 V:10). Šarrat-Ekron should be identified with Ptgyh, the Lady of Ekron known from the Ekron inscription (Gitin, Dothan, and Naveh 1997: 9; on the reading of the divine name, see now Press 2012, discussing previous literature).
vi 48: Watanabe (1987: 116) and Parpola and Watanabe (1988: 49) restore MEŠ after DINGIR in both DNs in ms 85, the only other extant ms with this curse, in accordance with SAA 2 5 r. iv 6' but nothing in the spacing of the line requires these restorations. In ms T, the absence of the divine determinative before Anath-Bethel is perhaps due to haplography. Similarly, does the AN before TI represent a scribal error in a line with numerous DINGIR signs?
vi 49: lim- is written with an initial horiztonal wedge, that is, <<ina>> lim-.vi 50: Ms T confirms the reading of the divine name in the only other extant ms, 37, by Watanabe (1987: 116)
as dkù-KÁ and not d15 as in previous editions. Following ms T, the subsequent signs in ms 37 read by her as d1[5] are better read as dk[ar], the beginning of Karh uh a, the divine name. The sign read ri!? lacks a vertical wedge and has three Winkelhaken. Perhaps it is a different sign altogether? To my knowledge, the word rimtu is a hapax, only attested in ms 37.
vi 51: The –tuk sign is defective, although differently so than in other extant ms for this line. vi 55: The verb in the only extant Nimrud manuscript, 37, is written li-kel-mu-ku-nu, showing Babylonian
vowel harmony.vi 58: Note the writing Ú.DA instead of the expected writing UD.DA as in the sole other extant manuscript, 37. vi 66: Ms T confirms the emendation in ms 37 suggested by Reiner (1969: 539 n. 22) of SAH.MEŠ-ku-nu to
SAH.MEŠ lu. The sign in ms T emended to ⌈aq!⌉ is ⌈na⌉ or ⌈qa⌉. The former would present an instance of ditto-graphy, while the latter might reflect an alternate pronunciation of the rarely attested word naqbaru (written as naq-bar-<<qa>>-ku-nu in ms 37, one of two extant ms from Nimrud).
120 JACOB LAUINGER
vii 6: As adê in line vii 1 is the antecedent of the relative pronoun ša (vii 1), which acts as the direct object of iškununi (vii 6), the repetition of adê in this line is syntactically unexpected and the text should be emended (unless we understand the ša in vii 1 as a periphrastic genitive to which vii 6 stands in apposition as an asyntetic relative clause). Interestingly, two of the other three extant manuscripts for this line present similar syntax. Ms 49 O, a very small fragment, has ⌈ša ina UGU-h i⌉-[šu-nu is-si-ku-nu iš-kun-u]-ni ta-h a-ta-[a-ni] after MAN KUR aš-šur (the restorations follows Parpola and Watanabe 1988: 50 n. to line 517; EN-ku-nu is omitted from the text). While this relative clause is not difficult in and of itself, it is redundant, essentially summarizing lines 514–16 and requires that the ša in line 513 be translated as a periphrastic genitive. Ms 27 has x]x-nu a-de-e with the trace of only a single vertical wedge coming out of the break. Watanabe (1987: 121, see also Parpola and Watanabe 1988: 50 note to line 517) takes this as a damaged -šu so that ms 27 parallels ms 49 O. However, the spacing could also allow the restoration -[k]u-nu so that the text parallels ms T. In any event, it seems noteworthy that only one of the four extant manuscripts, 49 C, offers the expected syntax.
vii 7: Ms 46 C, the only other ms to preserve the epithet of Aššur omits the qualification of the gods as “great.” vii 11: The verb in the two extant Nimrud manuscripts is šaqû. Ms T has šutēšuru, a verb used elsewhere in
connection with gods and springs, for example, the name of a gate at Khorsabad, Ea-muštēšir-nagbišu, “Ea-is-the-one-who-keeps-his-spring-in-order” (Fuchs Sargon 43: 70 and 71: 88). But this sense does not seem to fit the context of the curse in ms T and perhaps represents an inadvertent substitution of another word commonly written with nagbu.
vii 15: Only one ms from Nimrud, 28 A, preserves the end of this line, and it reads TUR.MEŠ GAL.MEŠ. As Watanabe (1987: 198) notes, the sign TUR is unexpected, given the relatively common epithet born by gods nādin nindabê ana ilāni or similar, see for example the many references presented under CAD N/2 s.v. nindabû usage a-4’ and especially, with reference to Girra, Maqlu II 138, cited by Watanabe (1987: 198). Watanabe suggests therefore that ms 28 may be better translated as “der den kleinen und großen Göttern Speiseopfer (Brandopfer) verschafft.” The appearance of the expected DINGIR in place of TUR in ms T implies that TUR was written in error in ms 28 A, although whether that error should be understood to have been an ocular slip (TUR for DINGIR?) or anticipa-tory (TUR with GAL?) is unclear. Ms 28 A may have an error in the following line as well, see the comment below.
vii 16: Ms 28 A, the only other extant ms with the end of the line preserved, omits ina girri.vii 20: Ms T provides further support for Watanabe’s (1987: 198) observation that “nur Text 27 zwischen §63
und §64 einen Trennungsstrich aufweist, d.h. die beiden Paragraphen gehören zusammen.” vii 32: There is no reason to read M[UNU₄] in the three extant Nimrud manuscripts as originally suggested
by Watanabe (1987: 199) and accepted by Parpola and Watanabe (1988: 51). Only the slightest trace of the sign remains in all three manuscripts, and the -ni preserved after the break in ms T may imply that a subjunctive verb should be restored. Whether the sign šá preserved before the break in all three extant Nimrud manuscripts but not in ms T should be understood as the relative particle or as the first sign of this verb is unclear. Previously, the end of the line was preserved only in ms 31, restored by Watanabe (1987: 199) as [ti]-ta-bé, but now to be restored as [sík]-kit KAŠ (Watanabe’s -ta- is clearly -kit- according to Wiseman’s copy). Sikkitu should be a variant of sikkatu, which has been understood to be a type of beer yeast (MSL 8/2 108 followed by Röllig 1970: 25 and 43 [as šikkatu]) or alternatively a plant utilized in the fermentation process (Stol 1971: 168). Evidently, the curse refers to the method by which the germination of barley is halted during the malting process.
vii 43: The signs written at the end of the line are very cramped. The verb is formed with a Babylonian pre-cative (in contrast to Assyrian precatives in the three other extant manuscripts) with apocopation of the 3 m. pl. morpheme (attested in one other ms). The final -⌈nu⌉ is written over the vertical ruling that divides the column.
vii 47: The three extant manuscripts from Nimrud have the grammatically expected form likkarkū.vii 50: The two extant ms from Nimrud have i-da-ba-bu-u-ni, that is, without consonantal gemination of the
initial radical but with regressive dissimilation of u > a, cf. viii 36.vii 56: -nap!- is written with the final two verticals side by side instead of superimposed.vii 59: The three other extant manuscripts all have the verb lušālikū.
ESARHADDON’S SUCCESSION TREATY AT TELL TAYINAT 121
vii 62: Ms T supports the reading šasbutu put forward by Parpola and Watanabe (1988: 53). On šasbutu, “cheese,” see Stol 1993: 106–7.
vii 65: Ms T agrees with ms 37 against three other manuscripts and omits an explicit subject for the verbs.vii 68: Three of the four extant Nimrud manuscripts add the phrase (ina qātī) bēl dāmīkunu, while a fourth is
too poorly preserved to tell.vii 70: On the basis of the line’s spacing, very little text can have been lost after -⌈ni⌉ and before –tu- (no more
than the -[t]a of previous line), and so kī h anniʾe, present in all other extant manuscripts, must have been omit-ted in ms T. Note that at least two Nimrud manuscripts omit the following word attunu. Both ina muh h i and marʾātikunu have also been omitted in ms T. In the case of the prepositional phrase, emendation is necessary for the sense of the passage. With regard to marʾātikunu, no emendation is necessary as this word or others in the common sequence “your brothers, your women, your sons, and your daughters” are omitted on multiple occasions in both ms T and the Nimrud manuscripts (e.g., ms 37 omits both marʾīkunu and marʾātikunu in this line).
vii 73: The verb in ms T is sapāku instead of sabātu as in all five other extant manuscripts. Is this possibly an error of anticipation in light of same verb in vii 77? On the other hand, sapāku and sabātu are synonyms, as both § 82 and SAA 9 2 i 11' demonstrate (see Parpola 1997: 14 n. to line i 11' for a suggested connection to Syriac *sbk) so perhaps the use of the verb in this line is simply a matter of semantic variation.
vii 74: Ms T has lúKÚR where the five other extant manuscripts have EN ÚŠ.MEŠ.vii 77: Watanabe (1987: 203) reconstructs h aerušh u from h a-e-[…] (ms 37) and […]-ru-uš-h i (ms 47 D), in
which she is followed by Parpola and Watanabe (1987: 54). Ms T shows that -pa- is missing from both manu-scripts. The verb sapāku is written with gemination of the initial radical in the only other extant ms. On the verb, see the comment to line vii 73.
vii 80: With a G-precative of gamāru, Ms T supports Parpola and Watanabe’s (1988: 54 n. to line 593) interpre-tation of li-ga-am-ru in the only other preserved manuscript, 30 C, as an N-precative of gamāru against Watanabe’s (1987: 130 and 203–4) reading li-gagàr-ru.
vii 81: In contrast to the other three extant manuscripts from Nimrud, the final radical of palāšu is written in ms T with the sign zA here and in vii 83. This writing should be seen as an example of the Neo-Assyrian allophone /z/ for /s/ typically written with Š, see Hämeen-Anttila 2000: 10.
vii 82: Ms T omits ina ŠÀ-bi before UzU.MEŠ, which is present in all other extant manuscripts. It also includes kī h anniʾe at the beginning of the main clause. On the basis of spacing, this phrase seems to have been omitted in four of the extant Nimrud manuscripts but was clearly present in ms 90 against the transliteration of the text by Watanabe (1987: 130).
vii 83: The final radical of palāšu is again written with the sign zA, see the comment to vii 81 above.vii 84–85: Besides ms T, only two extant manuscripts (27 and 51 C), contain this section. Manuscripts 30 C, 32,
50 P, and 90 omit it.vii 84: The reading bar- follows the collation of SAA 2 6 for ms 27 (absent in the copy of Wiseman 1958: plate
8), but the sign as written in ms T is clearly ME.vii 85: Ms T may omit ākilu, which is preserved in the two other extant manuscripts, as there doesn’t seem to
be room for more than three signs in the line’s damaged opening. Ms T has A.ŠÀ.MEŠ in place of na-gi-ku-nu in the two other extant manuscripts.
vii 91: The different manuscripts offer a number of variant writings of the verb, and it is possible that, with ms X 21, the form in ms T should be restored as a D precative.
(Although the lower edge of the tablet is destroyed, no text is missing.)viii 3: The other extant manuscripts vary as to whether the verb is in the G- or N-stem. The N-stem is restored
here on the basis of the following line, where the parallel verb is in the N-stem.viii 4: The three other manuscripts in which the verb is fully preserved show G-stem forms (i-ma-ah /mah ). The
verb is ms T is in the N-stem with consonantal gemination of the final radical.viii 17: ŠÀ! has only one Winkelhaken and two verticals.
122 JACOB LAUINGER
viii 28: Two of eight extant Nimrud ms add the common phrase “his brothers, sons of the same mother as Assurbanipal, the great crown prince designate (and) the other sons, the offspring of Esarhaddon, king of Assyria” (SAA 2 6 633A–C) as third and fourth direct objects of the verb turammâni. Ms T omits the third but includes the fourth (i.e., it has the second half of 633B and all of 633C)
viii 32: In contrast to all six extant manuscripts from Nimrud, the enclitic -ma in ms T is written -me.viii 33–34: Although the section is present in all extant manuscripts except ms 27, the verb is preserved in none.
Ms T has a Babylonian D-precative of a verb *qʾl (that the verb is in the D-stem seems clear from ms 31, which preserves the prefix of an Assyrian precative). On qâlu,“to fall,” see von Soden 1967: 295–96 and Richter 1992: 20.
viii 36: Unlike in the one other extant ms, 27, the verb in ms T shows regressive dissimilation of u > a, cf. vii 50, where the two extant Nimrud manuscripts, 27 and 37, show such dissimilation and ms T does not.
viii 39: Ms T lacks a horizontal ruling separating § 97 from § 98.viii 55: The verb is batāqu, not šalāqu as in the only other ms to preserve this verb, 30 B.viii 56: No ms from Nimrud preserves the transition from pu-qu-ti to kušE.SIR-ku-nu, so ga-zi-ri is absent from
earlier composite editions. The word gāziru should be a loan word from WSem. *gzr, “to cut.” For possible occur-rences of this root in the Akkadian lexicon “mit geringen lautlichen Abwandlungen,” see Dietrich and Loretz 1977: 55–56 and add SAA 3 16 obv. 26. The word perhaps designates a sharp stone, cf. the description of the land of Bāzu in Esarhaddon’s inscriptions as kaqqar bāsi puqutti u šinni sabīti, “(120 leagues) of desert, thorns, and ‘gazelle-tooth’-stones,” (RINAP 4 20 iv 55 et alibi).
viii 57: -tu!- has two initial horizontal wedges instead of one and two horizontals before the vertical wedge instead of three. The precative in ms T, libtuqū, repeats the verb two lines prior and has “they” (the gods) as the subject, while ms 51 H, the only other ms to preserve this passage, has lipparmā with kušE.SÍR as the subject. The concluding imperative, preserved only in ms T, finds parallels in royal inscriptions, for example, mīrânuššun ina muh h i libbīšunu ipšilūnimma illikūni adi Ninua, “Nakedly they crawled here on their bellies and came to Nineveh” (Borger Asb. 43 A iv 26–27).
viii 61–62: The verbs are not preserved in any Nimrud manuscripts.viii 63: The top of the numeral designating the day is damaged. The numeral is at least 16 but could be as high
as 19. This date is in accordance with the Nimrud manuscripts, two of which date to the 18th and one of which dates to the 16th.
References
Athanassiou, H. 1977 Rasm et-Tanjara: A Recently Discovered Syrian Tell in the Ghab. Part I: Inventory of the Chance Finds. Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Missouri-Columbia.Aynard, J.-M. and Nougayrol, J. 1971 Une tablette néo-assyrienne de Syrie (?) et le dieu Aramis. RA 65: 85–87.Borger, R. 1961 zu den Asarhaddon-Verträgen aus Nimrud. ZA 54: 173–96. 1983 Assyrische Staatsverträge. Pp. 160–76 in Rechts- und Wirtschaftsurkunden, Historisch-chronologische Texte, ed. O.
Kaiser. Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments 1. Gütersloh: Mohn.Dietrich, M. and Loretz, O. 1977 GZR “Abschneiden, Abkneifen” im Ugar. und Hebr. UF 9: 51–56.Frankena, R. 1965 The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon and the Dating of Deuteronomy. Oudtestamentische Studiën 14: 122–54.George, A. R. 1986 Sennacherib and the Tablet of Destinies. Iraq 48: 133–46.Gitin, S., Dothan, T., and Naveh, J. 1997 A Royal Dedicatory Inscription from Ekron. IEJ 47: 1–16.Grayson, A. K. 1991 Assyria: Sennacherib and Esarhaddon (704–669 B.C.). Pp. 103–41 in The Cambridge Ancient History, Vol. 3, Part
ESARHADDON’S SUCCESSION TREATY AT TELL TAYINAT 123
2. The Assyrian and Babylonian Empires and Other States of the Near East, from the Eighth to the Sixth Centuries B.C., ed. J. Boardman; I. E. S. Edwards; N. G. L. Hammond; E. Sollberger; and C. B. F. Walker. New York: Cam-bridge University.
Hämeen-Anttila, J. 2000 A Sketch of Neo-Assyrian Grammar. SAAS 13. Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project.Lauinger, J. 2011 Some Preliminary Thoughts on the Tablet Collection in Building XVI from Tell Tayinat. JCSMS 6: 5–14.Lipiński, E. 2000 The Arameans: Their Ancient History, Culture, Religion. OLA 100. Leuven: Peeters/Department of Oriental Studies.Liverani, M. 1995 The Medes at Esarhaddon’s Court. JCS 47: 57–62.Luukko, M. 2004 Grammatical Variation in Neo-Assyrian. SAAS 16. Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project.Parpola, S. 1974 The Forlorn Scholar. Pp. 257–78 in Language, Literature, and History: Philological and Historical Studies Presented
to Erica Reiner, ed. F. Rochberg-Halton. American Oriental Series 67. New Haven: American Oriental Society. 1987 Neo-Assyrian Treaties from the Royal Archives of Nineveh. JCS 39: 161–89. 1997 Assyrian Prophecies. SAA 9. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press.Parpola, S., and Watanabe, K. 1988 Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths. SAA 2. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press.Press, M. 2012 (Pytho)Gaia in Myth and Legend: The Goddess of the Ekron Inscription Revisited. BASOR 365: 1–25.Radner, K. 2006a Assyrische tuppi adê als Vorbild für Deuteronomium 28,20–44? Pp. 352–78 in Die deuteronomistischen Geschich-
tswerke: Redaktions- und religionsgeschichtliche Perspektiven zur “Deuteronomismus”-Diskussion in Tora und Vor-deren Propheten, ed. M. Witte; K. Schmid; D. Prechel; and J. C. Gertz. Beiheft zur zeitschrift für die alttestamentli-che Wissenschaft 365. New York: de Gruyter.
2006b Provinz. C. Assyrien. RlA 11/1–2: 42–68.Reiner, E. 1969 The Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon. Pp. 534–41 in Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 3rd
edition, ed. J. B. Pritchard. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Richter, T. 1992 Weitere Anmerkungen zu CAD Q. NABU 1992/24: 19–21.Röllig, W. 1970 Das Bier im alten Mesopotamien. Berlin: Gesellschaft für die Geschichte und Bibliographie des Brauwesens/Insti-
tut für Gärungsgewerbe und Biotechnologie.Schwemer, D. 2001 Die Wettergottgestalten Mesopotamiens und Nordsyriens im Zeitalter der Keilschriftkulturen: Materialen und Stu-
dien nach den schriftlichen Quellen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Stol, M. 1971 zur altmesopotamischen Bierbereitung. BiOr 28: 167–71. 1993 Milk, Butter, and Cheese. BSA 7: 99–113.Veldhuis, N. 2004 Religion, Literature, and Scholarship: The Sumerian Composition Nanše and the Birds, with a Catalogue of Sume-
rian Bird Names. CM 22. Leiden: Brill/Styx.von Soden, W. 1967 Kleine Beiträge zum Ugaritischen und Hebräischen. Pp. 291–300 in Hebräische Wortforschung: Festschrift zum 80.
Geburtstag von Walter Baumgartner. VTSup 16. Leiden: Brill.Watanabe, K. 1985 Die Siegelung der “Vasallenverträge Asarhaddons” durch den Gott Aššur. BaM 16: 377–92. 1987 Die adê-Vereidigung anlässlich der Thronfolgeregelung Asarhaddons. BaM Beiheft 3. Berlin: Mann.Wiseman, D. J. 1958 The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon. Iraq 20: 1–99 + plates.
